Abstract
PURPOSE: Reirradiation (re-RT) using external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a novel salvage strategy for local failure in prostate cancer. We performed a systematic review describing oncologic and toxicity outcomes for salvage EBRT/stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) re-RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registered (#141466) systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression was conducted using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 2019. Outcome measures included local control (LC), biochemical relapse free survival (BRFS), and ≥grade 3 genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. EBRT and SBRT data were collected separately. Meta-regression explored disease and toxicity outcomes as a function of equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), length of follow-up, and partial versus whole prostate reirradiation. RESULTS: Nineteen studies representing 13 cohorts were included (428 patients). Weighted mean follow-up was 26.1 months. Median re-RT EQD2 was 77.1 Gy (α/β = 1.5), with 92% of patients receiving SBRT, 52.1% of patients receiving partial prostate re-RT, and 30.1% of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy with re-RT. LC was 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%-90.9%) and BRFS was 59.3% (47.9%-70.7%). Reported late toxicity ≥grade 3 was 3.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.8%) for GU and 2.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-4.0%) for GI. Meta-regression found higher LC, BRFS, and reported GU/GI toxicity with increasing EQD2, with partial prostate re-RT associated with less reported GU/GI toxicity and no detriment to LC and BRFS. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage re-RT using EBRT, particularly with SBRT, is an emerging technique to treat isolated local failure of prostate cancer. With short-term follow-up, LC, BRFS, and reported toxicities appear reasonable, although further follow-up is required before definitive statements on late toxicities can be made. Our review is limited by incomplete reporting of androgen deprivation therapy use in the primary literature. Further prospective studies and longer follow-up are needed before considering re-RT as standard practice.