Magnetic resonance imaging-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: more than a simple “MIRAGE”?

Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is emerging as a safe and effective treatment alternative to normo-fractionated and moderate hypo-fractionated radiation regimens (1-4). It has been recently proposed as a new therapeutic standard by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (2) for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and in selected cases of high-risk PCa.

Routine implementation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) linacs represents a breakthrough innovation in the radiation oncology field, with a potential gain in terms of accuracy in treatment delivery thanks to a better visualization of target volumes and real-time plan adaptation (5). However, to date, the translation of such technology into an improved clinical outcome compared to state-of-the-art linac-based technology is less clearly established.

With the results of their open label, single institution, phase III, MIRAGE trial, Kishan et al. were able to shed light on the added value of this technology for the treatment of PCa (6). Comparing the incidence of grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of PCa patients randomized to an MRI-guided SBRT (with 2-mm planning margins) vs. a computed tomography (CT)-guided SBRT (with planning margins of 4 mm), the authors demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 grade ≥2 GU toxicity rates when SBRT was guided by MRI compared to CT imaging (24.4% vs. 43.4%, P=0.01). Similarly, patients treated with an MRI-guided SBRT showed a better toxicity profile even in the GI domains and several patient-reported outcomes at 1-month of follow-up.

While the authors should be congratulated for conducting this important trial and the results are undoubtedly of great interest, this study offers several points for discussion.

In the context of prostate SBRT treatments, the optimal radiotherapy dose and fractionation schedule remains yet to be determined. In the MIRAGE trial, the delivered dose was 40 Gy in 5 fractions on alternate days prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) (6). Not surprisingly, the acute urinary toxicity rate of the CT-guided SBRT arm of the MIRAGE trial was higher than the acute toxicity observed in the PACE-B international, phase 3, randomized, non-inferiority trial testing SBRT vs. moderate hypo-fractionated RT for localized PCa. In the PACE-B trial a 40 Gy dose was delivered to the prostate but with a dose-reduction to the PTV (36.25 Gy), an optimization to the urethra, and implementation of intrafraction motion control using a robotic arm delivery system in almost half of the SBRT patients (approximately 21% of acute CTCAE grade ≥2 GU toxicity) (7).

On the other hand, the rate of acute grade ≥2 GU toxicity was comparable to patients treated in the CT-guided SBRT phase II randomized PATRIOT trial evaluating the impact of overall treatment time delivering a homogenous dose of 40 Gy with an isotropic 5-mm margin [32.9% and 36.5%, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading scale, for patients treated every-other-day or once weekly, respectively] (8).

As the benefit of dose escalation remains to be defined in the setting of prostate SBRT, use of protracted SBRT regimens using once weekly schedules (9-11), implementation of focal dose escalation to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (12), or delivery of urethra-sparing techniques (13), are emerging strategies to mitigate the differences in terms of toxicities observed in the MIRAGE trial between the CT- and the MRI-guided arms.

The volumetric impact of moving from a 4-mm isotropic margin with a CT-guided SBRT to a 2-mm margin using an MRI-guided SBRT is doubtless. If an isotropic 2-mm PTV margin is not a clear standard for SBRT treatments, with the use of online correction protocols and tracking assistance, it seems realistic to push the limit at this level also for CT-guided SBRT treatments (14). Notably intrafraction motion control systems like use of electromagnetic transponders (15) or single/stereoscopic X-ray imaging of implanted markers (16) are commercially available and installed on standard linacs.

Some authors have recently proposed and clinically applied a sub-fractionation workflow for magnetic resonance (MR)-guided SBRT to allow for a reduction of intra-fraction uncertainties, thus reduced PTV margins, at the cost of a 42-minute treatment time on average per fraction (17). In comparison, the fast beam-on time of CT-guided SBRT using volumetric delivery techniques [volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)] does clearly better than the MRI-guided SBRT treatments using multiple-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques (in the MIRAGE trial, the median post-imaging delivery time was 232 seconds in the CT-arm compared to 1,133 seconds in the MR-arm). Not only a better reproducibility related to the shorter treatment times, but a better inter-operator variability in treatment planning can also be expected using a VMAT technique compared to a multiple-field IMRT (18).

Nevertheless, it is undoubtful that MRI-guided SBRT with daily online adaptive is an emerging technique with a great potential for mitigation of radiation-induced toxicities. As shown by a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, MR-guided adaptive SBRT is associated with a significantly reduced risk of acute grade 2 or higher GU or GI toxicity compared to a fiducial or CT-guided non-adaptive prostate SBRT (12% and 5% on average, respectively) (19).

In summary, the results of the MIRAGE trial are a clear step forward in the optimization of SBRT treatments for PCa. While implementation of new technologies in the routine clinical practice has the potential to translate in a clinically measurable benefit, the best way to deliver SBRT treatments to PCa patients probably remains yet to be defined.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Translational Cancer Research. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-23-611/prf

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-23-611/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Corkum MT, Achard V, Morton G, et al. Ultrahypofractionated Radiotherapy for Localised Prostate Cancer: How Far Can We Go? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022;34:340-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022;20:1288-98. [PubMed]
3. Tree AC, Ostler P, van der Voet H, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2-year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2022;23:1308-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L, et al. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019;394:385-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Pollard JM, Wen Z, Sadagopan R, et al. The future of image-guided radiotherapy will be MR guided. Br J Radiol 2017;90:20160667. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Kishan AU, Ma TM, Lamb JM, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided vs Computed Tomography-Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: The MIRAGE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2023;9:365-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Brand DH, Tree AC, Ostler P, et al. Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1531-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Quon HC, Ong A, Cheung P, et al. Once-weekly versus every-other-day stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer (PATRIOT): A phase 2 randomized trial. Radiother Oncol 2018;127:206-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Zilli T, Jorcano S, Bral S, et al. Every-Other-Day Versus Once-a-Week Urethra-Sparing Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: 5-Year Results of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; Epub online ahead of print. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Zilli T, Jorcano S, Bral S, et al. Once-a-week or every-other-day urethra-sparing prostate cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy, a randomized phase II trial: 18 months follow-up results. Cancer Med 2020;9:3097-106. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Alayed Y, Quon H, Ong A, et al. Accelerating prostate stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: Efficacy and toxicity of a randomized phase II study of 11 versus 29 days overall treatment time (PATRIOT). Radiother Oncol 2020;149:8-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Draulans C, van der Heide UA, Haustermans K, et al. Primary endpoint analysis of the multicentre phase II hypo-FLAME trial for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020;147:92-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Zilli T, Achard V, Guevelou JL. Intraprostatic Urethra: The New Kid on the Block for Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022;113:92-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Ghadjar P, Fiorino C, Munck Af Rosenschöld P, et al. ESTRO ACROP consensus guideline on the use of image guided radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2019;141:5-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Jaccard M, Ehrbar S, Miralbell R, et al. Single-fraction prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: Dose reconstruction with electromagnetic intrafraction motion tracking. Radiother Oncol 2021;156:145-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Keall PJ, Nguyen DT, O'Brien R, et al. Review of Real-Time 3-Dimensional Image Guided Radiation Therapy on Standard-Equipped Cancer Radiation Therapy Systems: Are We at the Tipping Point for the Era of Real-Time Radiation Therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018;102:922-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Willigenburg T, Zachiu C, Bol GH, et al. Clinical application of a sub-fractionation workflow for intrafraction re-planning during prostate radiotherapy treatment on a 1.5 Tesla MR-Linac: A practical method to mitigate intrafraction motion. Radiother Oncol 2022;176:25-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Jaccard M, Zilli T, Dubouloz A, et al. Urethra-Sparing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Quality Assurance of a Randomized Phase 2 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020;108:1047-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Leeman JE, Shin KY, Chen YH, et al. Acute toxicity comparison of magnetic resonance-guided adaptive versus fiducial or computed tomography-guided non-adaptive prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer 2023;129:3044-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]