No difference in SBRT vs conventional... - Prostate Cancer N...

Prostate Cancer Network

5,258 members3,325 posts

No difference in SBRT vs conventionally fractionated radiation for intermediate risk patients

Tall_Allen profile image
80 Replies

6-year update of PACE-B randomized trial continues to show no difference in outcomes. This month is my 13th anniversary getting cured with SBRT with no lasting side effects.

prostatecancer.news/2019/02...

prostatecancer.news/2019/04...

For low-risk patients and even some favorable intermediate-risk patients, active surveillance is preferred.

For high-risk patients, SBRT is still considered to be experimental, and brachy boost therapy with a year of ADT is a standard-of-care. PSMA PET/CT should rule out distant metastases.

Written by
Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
80 Replies

I am TRULY happy for you. You deserve it.

GreenStreet profile image
GreenStreet

Happy anniversary. Congratulations!

Congratulations!

ocman profile image
ocman

Congratulations Brother!

Steve507 profile image
Steve507

Congratulations!

Re the quotation "For low-risk patients and even some favorable intermediate-risk patients, active surveillance is preferred."

Medical professionals who offer active surveillance as an option for intermediate (favorable) risk...hmm! I'sa wonder how many of these medical professionals who make these assertions have had intermediate, (favorable or otherwise) prostate cancer?

I do understand that G 3+3 is a different animal!

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toSteve507

If you have, say, one core that has a small amount of pattern 4, and pattern 4 is 5% of that core, active surveillance may still be a good choice.

"The use of active surveillance for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer has increased markedly. Over half of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance remained free of treatment 5 years after diagnosis. Most men on active surveillance will not lose their window of cure and have similar short-term oncologic outcomes as men undergoing up-front treatment. Active surveillance is an oncologically safe option for appropriately selected men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer."

auajournals.org/doi/10.1097...

Believeit profile image
Believeit in reply toTall_Allen

Congratulations. Great to have such a good outcome. 😊

KocoPr profile image
KocoPr in reply toTall_Allen

unfortunately i was 3+3 with 1% of 1 core and went on active surveillance and here i am advanced PCa. Luckily for me i had found on my dime i had FGFR4 mutation which predicted 5x chance of my cancer becoming metastatic and 6x chance of becoming aggressive. I had the urologist take my prostate out and they discovered it had escaped and also PNI. I was upgraded to 3+4.

I really think genetic testing should be done sooner rather than later.

Anyways TA i am so happy for you and I thank you for being the go to guy on SOC options.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toKocoPr

Kudos to you for catching that! I agree that with germline genomic testing being so fast, cheap, and widely available, that everyone with a PCa diagnosis or cancer in their family should have one. If anyone has a PCa diagnosis, it is free and you just spit in a bottle they mail to you:

prostatecancerpromise.org/

jackwfrench profile image
jackwfrench in reply toTall_Allen

After RP and BCR I did this in advice from Pat Walsh at Hopkins and have 2 CHEK2 “variants of unknown significance “ at Invitae but my MO says CHEK2 is aggressive and therefore will prescribe taxotere earlier(?) Is that what we might expect in guidance from a germline genetic test?

Pride123 profile image
Pride123 in reply toTall_Allen

Just enrolled hubs for this program. From what I understand, this genetic testing could possibly guide him in his quest for best possible treatment? Is that correct? So glad you posted that information!

ADTMan profile image
ADTMan in reply toTall_Allen

I haven't read, nor could I probably interpret the meaning of these studies however, we know that prostate biopsies are notoriously inaccurate because they only sample a small amount of prostate tissue. But, on the whole, the statistics are what they are and that is very hopeful for many.

mchale profile image
mchale in reply toTall_Allen

Hi TA,

Been reading your posts and I congratulate you on being such a great patient advocate and the depth of your knowledge.

I'm at a crossroad where I have to make a decision...... GL 7 unfavorable originally diagnosed with transperineal biopsy June 24, one core 4+3, another core 3+4, 3 cores 3+3 at Weil Cornell.

Went to MSK, pathology was reclassified GL 7 favorable,one core 3+4 1.8mm 35% grade 4 right posterior, 2nd core 3+4 7.4mm 20% grade 4 left anterior, 3 cores 3+3 right posterior and left posterior.

My decipher score was low risk at .29, Pet showed a little suv uptake in one pelvic node likely false positive due to low decipher, no ADT indicated. Last PSA 6 weeks after biopsy was 2.17 (double that #been on Dutastride for many years for hair loss). Been between 2-2.5 for the last 3 years. Had a PSA done Friday, will get results in a few days.

Looking at MRI Linac on Electra SBRT 5 sessions, RO wants to use SpaceOr.

Stupid question but is AS possible or focal treatment, or best to just treat it with MRI Electra....still very sexually active and want to retain that..... Just scared....

68yo next month, been a long year after my PSA jumped from 1.2 for the last 10 years to 2.0 in 2021.

Kind Regards,

John

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply tomchale

Your pattern 4 is too high for AS. Focal therapy doesn't work well enough. I've never had a problem with erections, about ¾ don't (which is why I chose SBRT). I took daily low-dose Viagra every night for about 9 months starting with my first treatment. I also exercised heavily, which is probably protective of healthy tissues.

mchale profile image
mchale in reply toTall_Allen

Yes, I figured as much, the pattern 4 is too much and in two different lobes, and the 3+3 is in the other two lobes can change.....so MRI guided Linac it is.....the fact that I can avoid ADT is huge and waiting buys a risk of spread....my RO told me last month don't wait a year to get treated...... I'll take my chances at a Center of Excellence.

Thank You,

mchale profile image
mchale in reply toTall_Allen

Allen, with a low decipher of .29 the 20% and 35% Grade Group 4 in my two 3+4 cores is that the concern....?

How do you use decipher then.....? is it the context of treatment ? Someone mentioned to me the risk of spread is low 15 years out so I shouldn't over treat....

can you put this in context

Thank You

Optimistic49 profile image
Optimistic49

Congrats!

Steve507 profile image
Steve507

I appreciate your response, Allen.

Are there anybodies out there reading this who are/were on active surveillance or were offered it who have/had favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer per the criteria in Allen's example, '... one core that has a small amount of pattern 4, and pattern 4 is 5% of that core.' ? If so I'd like to hear your POV.

Cheers

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toSteve507

Several men in my groups have had that diagnosis. Even Johns Hopkins, which used to have very strict criteria (The Epstein Criteria) have now relaxed it, and allow such men in their program.

rosenjpj profile image
rosenjpj in reply toSteve507

I remained on AS after my second biopsy where two of ten cores were GS 6 and one was GS 3+4 (2% GS 4). I progressed to GS 4+3 two years later and had MR guided SBRT with four months on ADT (Orgovyx). I was under the care of MSK… followed by Dr Ehdaie for AS and Dr McBride who did the MR guided SBRT.

Steve507 profile image
Steve507 in reply torosenjpj

Thanks for your reply. I read your history in your bio and I suggest other interested parties do the same who are considering AS.Question: If you had to do this all again, what might you had done differently? Hard one I know.

Prostate disease is so idiosyncratic which can make treatment decisions a crap shoot. I went very aggressive with my treatment (see bio) and nearly 4.5 years later believe/feel I made the right choice? after doing as much research and meditation and contemplation this one man could stand. I'm grateful for modern medicine and technology, but I also know that when I decided on my treatment options it was because I was my own best counselor and advocate. I read the latest research/ best educated guessing but know I am the one who lives with his decisions.

Best

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toSteve507

Very hard to say in retrospect, and retrospective thinking is something I rarely do. Decipher and mpMRI/PIRADS were not available back then and there was limited data from Klotz. I agree that we all have to advocate for ourselves.

Steve507 profile image
Steve507 in reply toTall_Allen

'Decipher and mpMRI/PIRADS were not available back then...'

What year does 'back then' do you refer you?

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toSteve507

I was treated in 2010. PIRADS version 1 didn't become available until 2014.

Seminole0412 profile image
Seminole0412 in reply torosenjpj

Hi rosenjpj, I am GS 3+4 and classified intermediate unfavorable. Dr at Duke recommending 6 month ADT plus 5 sessions of SBRT. SBRT to only the prostate not lymph nodes. due to low odds of spread and fewer side effects. I was curious if MSK included lymph nodes or confined yours to prostate.

rosenjpj profile image
rosenjpj in reply toSeminole0412

I believe it was prostate only since there was no evidence of SV involvement.

mchale profile image
mchale in reply torosenjpj

That's my fear, I have 2 cores 3+4 with 20% and 35% Grade group 4, my decipher is low at .29....

paige20180 profile image
paige20180

What a great outcome. So happy for you TA. Wish my husband had had some success with radiation but so glad you did.

garyjp9 profile image
garyjp9

Happy Anniversary, TA. Over that time, you have continued to provided so much knowledge and support and recommendations to other brothers and their loved ones. Many thanks.

LBRV711 profile image
LBRV711

Thank TA for all you do. And congrats on your excellent outcome. You and so many on this forum have told me I should seriously consider AS because I have G6. I am now considering that. The urologist and RO are saying I can, but because 5 core fragments out of 12 had cancer, that volume would lean them toward SBRT now rather than later. Although they said I can easily wait a 6 months to a year if I want. Not sure what to do, but I’m still taking it slow. Waiting for genomic testing to come back as well. Thank you again Tall Allen.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toLBRV711

I had, I think, 9 cores out of 17 with GS6. There wasn't as much data then on AS. Knowing what I know now (mpMRI and Decipher weren't available), I might have chosen AS (but hard to say in retrospect). I did take 9 months to decide and talked to 6 specialists.

Carlosbach profile image
Carlosbach

Congratulations Allen. Good for you, and great news for all of us who rely on your extremely valuable advice.

Orgazmo profile image
Orgazmo

Congratulations, Allen!

Fiddler2004 profile image
Fiddler2004

Congratulations 🙏 and as always thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge

GMorz profile image
GMorz

Thankyou for this great information.

Is this the same recommendation for radiation following BCR. What would you use if you had RP and then BCR ? Thankyou

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toGMorz

After prostatectomy, one must be careful about irradiating the area without the prostate in place to block the full power of the X-rays. Urinary side effects are higher with any knd of salvage radiation. SBRT is not used as salvage after RP, except in clinical trials. However, moderately hypofractionated radiation (like 52Gy on 20 treatments) has been found to have no worse side effects compared to conventional fractionation.

prostatecancer.news/2016/08...

GMorz profile image
GMorz in reply toTall_Allen

Thankyou so much

Seasid profile image
Seasid

Did they allow you to get ADT?

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toSeasid

All the patients were low- or favorable intermediate-risk, so no ADT was used.

PSAed profile image
PSAed

Well done on your cure TA.

CURE.....what a magical word.

And thank you for all the valuable information you continue to give us all here.Best Wishes

rosenjpj profile image
rosenjpj

Congrats on another year of curative results! You have been a beacon for me and others. THANK YOU!

Sisira profile image
Sisira

Happy Anniversary ! Long live with good health, peace and happiness ! Thank you for the immense service to the community 🙏.

LongevityAT profile image
LongevityAT

Congratulations! While I'm in no hurry to get there, I look forward to my first 13 years of cure!

northshoreguy profile image
northshoreguy

I'll play the devil's advocate on active surveillance for a 3+4 Gleason score. That was my initial score at the time of diagnosis. After surgery the biopsy came in at 4+3 and sure enough, after 6 months they found a metastasis in my pelvic bone which necessated SBRT with 2 years of Lupron/Eligard/Orgovyx. Alls well that ends well, I'm currently 3+ years at <.02.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply tonorthshoreguy

The way active surveillance works in men with GS3+4 is they would have a confirmatory mpMRI-targeted biopsy, analysis of volume of pattern 4, genomics, and annual PSAs and biopsies. You were never on active surveillance.

northshoreguy profile image
northshoreguy in reply toTall_Allen

Correct, but my original urologist recommended AS the second one was all for surgery asapThe point I was trying to make was that sometimes the biopsy can be wrong if they don't sample the right spots.

In hindsight I think I would have gone with radiation rather than surgery.

Also, I got a kidney stone 10 days after surgery which caused a severe sepsis infection in my kidney and they couldn't take it out because the area was not healed . Long story short, they ended up putting a Stent between my kidney and bladder which was horrifically painful for two months .

Hindsight is 20/20

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply tonorthshoreguy

I agree - a single biopsy is often wrong. IMO, and in the opinion of most of today's AS programs at major hospitals, one is never on AS unless there is a confirmatory mp-MRI-guided biopsy.

BL2023 profile image
BL2023

Congrats on your cure free anniversary and I’ll add another thanks for all the information you provide on this forum.

TMcgee profile image
TMcgee

Congrats! Your good fortune is our good fortune

PSAed profile image
PSAed in reply toTMcgee

Brilliant ! 😀

Oeje14 profile image
Oeje14

I am a Gleasin 9 and got SBRT at Georgetown the after CTAnd bone scans there was no evidence any where else. NIH had me on active surveillance for 3 years and it cost me dearly. Don’t ever go on active surveillance ever. I’m lucky I’m on lupron and my PSA is undetectable at least for now.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toOeje14

If you were Gleason 9, you were never on "active surveillance" (AS). AS is only a term used for non-treated low-risk and some non-treated favorable intermediate risk patients.

Oeje14 profile image
Oeje14

I was a Gleason 6 when I went there. The would mri once a year and biopsy me every 3 but my PSA kept rising and they said I was ok. Then I was biopsy in 2018 and was a Gleason 9.

Papillon2 profile image
Papillon2

Congrats

Rams91 profile image
Rams91

Congratulation Allen. I was hoping to sign up for SBRT salvage trials post-op, mostly because of MRI precision delivery, but had second thoughts after evaluating possible side effects. I'm heading for 25 sessions of more conventional IMRT instead.

jackcop profile image
jackcop

Congrats. You've been an advocate for PCa treatment plans for a long time. I personally thank you as I wouldn't have gotten a second opinion at John Hopkins without your expertise. 👍

vforvendetta profile image
vforvendetta

Congratulations, Allen - and thank you for all that you do!

Garp41 profile image
Garp41

Tall.....where did you have it done, how many treatments and what equipment was used?

Thanks,

Doug

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toGarp41

It was a clinical trial run by Chris King at UCLA (he first used it in 2003). 40 Gy over 5 treatments, done with RapidArc. Now they use MRIdian on most patients.

Garp41 profile image
Garp41 in reply toTall_Allen

Thanks

Do you believe there is any value to the germ line genetic test if you have already pursued a curative therapy? I was treated with SBRT for favorable intermediate PC almost five years ago. PSA drop was a bit bumpy. Anything gained for me or my family in a genetic test post treatment?

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply tocybertreated2019

For you, probably not. For your family, maybe it may alert them to be more vigilant with diagnostics. For men everywhere, adding your info to the PROMISE registry builds a database that may help create the preventions and treatments of the future.

cybertreated2019 profile image
cybertreated2019 in reply toTall_Allen

Do you see one of the genetic tests as superior to the others if cost is not a concern?

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply tocybertreated2019

I know Johns Hopkins uses Color Genome Dx, as is also used in the PROMISE registry - and it's free if you have a PCa diagnosis.

Mtnhigh profile image
Mtnhigh

Congrats Tall_Allen! Thank you for sharing knowledge with us all. And thank you for guidance regarding my husband's initial RT (finished 3 mo ago). We wanted to go the SBRT route but three ROs we consulted suggested 20 sessions. Guess because it was/is SOC. He continues to say "the blog people" have better advise than his doctors.

MackworthGuy profile image
MackworthGuy

congrats on the outcome and more importantly perhaps how you’ve used those years to help so many others of us. Years well spent on that alone and no doubt you are happy in life as well! Thanks

cancerfox profile image
cancerfox

Here's wishing you many more anniversaries for being cured of PC! 🦊

Hobie14 profile image
Hobie14

Best to you,Thanks for all your advice and knowledge.

JimmyJet profile image
JimmyJet

Tall Allen, I am G8. Had failed FLA in 2021. PSMA 12/22 showed 'some' uptake only in the gland. I am scheduled for proton ultrahypofractionation over 7 visits. Most ROs wanted 40 over 8 weeks because of the compromised tissue FLA left behind. I understand Dr. Kishan at UCLA does SBRT after failed FLA.

Am I taking too big of a risk (because of the 'scar' tissue) in doing ultra hypofractionated proton or photon SBRT for that matter ?

Would 7 proton sessions be similar to 5 SBRT sessions?

Would proton be as 'precise' as cyberknife?

I understand outcomes are considered equivalent between PT and Photon. Do you have any other factors to consider when doing Proton? We know it stops at the target which at least intuitively sounds better. Appreciate all your comments and thoughts. Many thanks, Tim

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toJimmyJet

Braggs peak is a theoretical framework that does not occur in real life. In real life, protons generate secondary particles and there is diffraction from the nozzle head. It seems to be just as toxic to neighboring organs at risk as X-rays. But there are no direct comparisons because proton centers refuse to do the randomized clinical trials that would prove an advantage if there is one. If they are so sure of it, what are they afraid of?

JimmyJet profile image
JimmyJet

Thank you for your thoughts. I had failed Focal Laser Ablation in October of 2021. Would 7 Ultrahypofractionated Proton sessions be too toxic for the residual FLA scar tissue... or photon SBRT for that matter? If proton radiation and photon radiation are so similar, why wouldn't I choose protons simply from an intuitive standpoint? I appreciate all your advice.

Thank you again. Tim

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toJimmyJet

IDK how to make decisions based on your intuitions.

JimmyJet profile image
JimmyJet

What would you choose? Photon or proton treatment under my circumstances. If they are equal, how do you pick one over the other? Thanks, Tim

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toJimmyJet

What I would choose depends on availability, convenience, the experience of the ROs involved, and my expected out-of-pocket costs. So what I would choose has no relevance to you.

Rick_ profile image
Rick_

I would appreciate members thoughts regarding the claim and results below.

30 Sept’2023 News Australia

Prostate Cancer – Intense form of radiotherapy – SBRT (Astro Pace B Trial)

Royal Marsden Hospital London – Prof. Nicholas Van As (Chef Trial Investigator). Trial: UK, Island, Scotland, Canada

For low to medium risk PC – ‘the cancer did not spread’.

Treatment – 5 sessions of radiotherapy instead of 20 or more

Success rate 96% - 8 years on the patients are cancer free

No downside - low or no side effects

No need for hormone therapy (none of the trial members were given hormone therapy) no hot flushes or loss of libido.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toRick_

I guess you didn't bother to read the links I provided.

Rick_ profile image
Rick_ in reply toTall_Allen

T_Allen, apologies for that. I was unaware of them. Shall have a study today. Thank you, R.

Miko710 profile image
Miko710

Hello - I've been reading all your posts. Thanks so much. My situation: my PMSA PET scan said four tumours Gleason 4+3 and one with Gleason 8. All contained within the prostate capsule. I have cribriform pattern and possible intraductal, so those are negatives, but the overall prognosis long term is excellent. I had SBRT in July. After effects (minor rectal bleeding, urination burning) are all resolved. BPH is as it was (I live with it). I'm on Eligard. My SE are not fun, but manageable with diet and exercise. I'm taking calcium, vitamin D, now iron for mild anemia. I'm in month of 7 of 18 (maybe 12). My PSA three months post SBRT is .05. I've read that a nadir below that may suggest that 12 months is OK. I'll talk to my RO in the spring. I'm in Montreal, so I'm at the mercy of our public system here in Quebec (RAMQ) to cover the cost. They do so with Eligard (almost 100%). Is Orgovyx better? How so? If it's covered by the public system, I may ask my RO about it. Any advice would be most welcome.

Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen in reply toMiko710

Eligard and Orgovyx do the same thing - lower your testosterone.

Miko710 profile image
Miko710

Thanks

Not what you're looking for?

You may also like...

Should SBRT be THE preferred treatment for intermediate risk prostate cancer?

Unfortunately, not enough patients meet with a radiation oncologist who specializes in SBRT. While...
Tall_Allen profile image

SBRT has excellent outcomes for intermediate risk patients

This is the 7- year update of the consortium study on 2,142 low and intermediate risk patients...
Tall_Allen profile image

SBRT for High Risk PC

Not quite as effective as Brachy Boost Therapy, but less toxic and more convenient....
Tall_Allen profile image

Adding ADT to external beam radiation only benefits unfavorable risk patients

"Favorable intermediate risk" patients are sometimes overtreated by doctors who give them adjuvant...
Tall_Allen profile image

SBRT v. Brachytherapy for Favorable Intermediate Risk

Hi. I'm new here. Appreciate the intelligent and supportive comments. I'm 56 yrs old, diagnosed 5...
StrongFives profile image

Moderation team

Bethishere profile image
BethishereAdministrator
Number6 profile image
Number6Administrator
Darryl profile image
DarrylPartner

Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.

Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.