Proton therapy for isolated local regional recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomy alone.

Purpose/Objectives: To assess adverse events (AEs) and disease-specific outcomes after proton therapy for isolated local-regional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer after mastectomy without prior radiotherapy (RT). Materials/Methods: Patients were identified from a multi-institutional prospective registry and included if diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, initially underwent mastectomy without adjuvant RT, experienced an LRR, and subsequently underwent salvage treatment, including proton therapy. Follow-up and cancer outcomes were measured from the date of RT completion. Results: Nineteen patients were included. Seventeen patients were treated with proton therapy to the chest wall and comprehensive regional lymphatics (17/19, 90%). Maximum grade AE was grade 2 in 13 (69%) patients and grade 3 in 4 (21%) patients. All patients with grade 3 AE received > 60 GyE (p=0.04, Spearman correlation coefficient=0.5). At the last follow-up, 90% of patients were alive with no LRR or distant recurrence. Conclusions: For breast cancer patients with isolated LRR after initial mastectomy without adjuvant RT, proton therapy is well-tolerated in the salvage setting with excellent loco-regional control. All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving > 60 GyE.

Selection of Mediastinal Lymphoma Patients for Proton Therapy Within the Proton Collaborative Group Registry: Concordance With the ILROG Guidelines.

PURPOSE: As patients with mediastinal lymphoma are typically young with curable disease, advanced radiation techniques such as proton therapy are often considered to minimize subacute and late toxicity. However, it is unclear which mediastinal lymphoma patients are treated with proton therapy. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, we characterized mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy and assessed concordance with consensus recommendations published in 2018 by the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). METHODS: Eligible patients included those with lymphoma of the mediastinum treated exclusively with proton therapy for whom digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) treatment data were available for review. Given the challenge with reliably visualizing the left mainstem coronary artery, the inferior-most aspect of the left pulmonary artery (PA) was used as a surrogate. Extent of disease was characterized as upper mediastinum (above level of left PA), middle mediastinum (below left PA but at or above level of T8), or low mediastinum (below T8). RESULTS: Between November 2012 and April 2019, 56 patients were treated and met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with proton therapy were young (median, 24 y; range: 12 to 88), with over half being female (55%). Patients were most commonly treated at initial diagnosis (86%) and had Hodgkin lymphoma (79%). Most patients (96%) had mediastinal disease that extended down to the level of the heart: 48% had middle and 48% had low mediastinal involvement. Nearly all patients (96%) met the ILROG consensus recommendations: 95% had lower mediastinal disease, 46% were young females, and 9% were heavily pretreated. Heart (mean) and lung dose (mean, V5, V20) were significantly associated with lowest extent of mediastinal disease. CONCLUSIONS: Mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy are typically young with lower mediastinal involvement. Within a prospective, multi-institutional proton registry, nearly all treated patients fit the ILROG consensus recommendations regarding which mediastinal lymphoma patients may most benefit from proton therapy.

Acute toxicities after proton beam therapy following breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: Multi-institutional prospective PCG registry analysis.

We investigated adverse events (AEs) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. From 2012 to 2016, 82 patients received PBT in the prospective multi-institutional Proton Collaborative Group registry. AEs were recorded prospectively at each institution. Median follow-up was 8.1 months. Median dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Most patients received a lumpectomy bed boost (90%) and regional nodal irradiation (RNI)(83%). Six patients (7.3%) experienced grade 3 AEs (5 with dermatitis, 5 with breast pain). Body mass index (BMI) was associated with grade 3 dermatitis (P = .015). Fifty-eight patients (70.7%) experienced grade ≥2 dermatitis. PBT including RNI after BCS is well-tolerated. Elevated BMI is associated with grade 3 dermatitis.

Patient reported outcomes following proton pencil beam scanning vs. passive scatter/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of PCG 001-09.

BACKGROUND: Although pencil beam scanning (PBS) is the most conformal method for proton beam therapy (PBT) delivery, it is unknown if outcomes differ compared to treatment with passive scatter/uniform scanning (PS/US). This analysis compares patient reported outcomes (PRO) changes following PBS and PS/US for prostate cancer (PC) in a prospective multicenter registry study. METHODS: We evaluated PROs with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument for men with localized PC enrolled in PCG 001-09 (NCT01255748). PROs were assessed at baseline and through 12 months of follow-up. We compared mean changes in EPIC scores, as well as the proportions of men experiencing a one- and two-fold minimally important difference (MID) in domain scores, between PBS and PS/US. Multivariate analyses (MVAs) were performed to further evaluate the association between proton modality and PRO changes. RESULTS: Three-hundred-and-four men completed EPIC at baseline; 72 received PBS and 232 received PS/US. The average quality-of-life (QOL) declines from baseline through 12 months did not significantly differ between the two groups. The proportion of men reporting a 1-MID decline at 12 months for PBS and PS/US was 34.3% and 27.4%, respectively, for urinary QOL (P = 0.27); 40. 1% and 40.9% for bowel QOL (P = 0.36); and 30. 1% and 36.6% for sexual QOL (P = 0.94). Corresponding 2-MID declines for PBS and PS/US were observed in 26.9% and 13.2% of men for urinary QOL (P = 0.01), 35.3% and 29.1% for bowel QOL (P = 0.33); and 16.4% and 18.1% for sexual QOL (P = 0.76). The association between proton modality and 2-MID changes in urinary QOL at 12-months remained significant on MVA (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis show differences between PBS and PS/US with regards to two-fold MID changes in urinary function at 12 months, but no differences for average score declines over time. Future studies evaluating PRO measures between the two PBT modalities are warranted.

A Multi-Institutional Experience of Proton Beam Therapy for Sinonasal Tumors.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of sinonasal tumors treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) on the Proton Collaborative Group registry study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-nine patients with sinonasal tumors underwent curative intent PBT between 2010 and 2016. Patients who received de novo irradiation (42 patients) were analyzed separately from those who received reirradiation (27 patients) (re-RT). Median age was 53.1 years (range, 15.7-82.1; de novo) and 57.4 years (range, 31.3-88.0; re-RT). The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma in both groups. Median PBT dose was 58.5 Gy (RBE) (range, 12-78.3; de novo) and 60.0 Gy (RBE) (range 18.2-72.3; re-RT), and median dose per fraction was 2.0 Gy (RBE) for both cohorts. Survival estimates for patients who received de novo irradiation and those who received re-RT were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median follow-up for surviving patients was 26.4 months (range, 3.5-220.5). The 3-year overall survival (OS), freedom from distant metastasis, freedom from disease progression, and freedom from locoregional recurrence (FFLR) for de novo irradiation were 100%, 84.0%, 77.3%, and 92.9%, respectively. With re-RT, the 3-year OS, freedom from distant metastasis, FFDP, and FFLR were 76.2%, 47.4%, 32.1%, and 33.8%, respectively. In addition, 12 patients (17.4%) experienced recurrent disease. Re-RT was associated with inferior FFLR (P = .04). On univariate analysis, squamous cell carcinoma was associated with inferior OS (P < .01) for patients receiving re-RT. There were 11 patients with acute grade 3 toxicities. Late toxicities occurred in 15% of patients, with no grade ≥3 toxicities. No patients developed vision loss or symptomatic brain necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: As one of the largest studies of sinonasal tumors treated with PBT, our findings suggest that PBT may be a safe and efficacious treatment option for patients with sinonasal tumors.

Proton beam therapy delivered using pencil beam scanning vs. passive scattering/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Comparative toxicity analysis of PCG 001-09.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient-level benefits of proton beam therapy (PBT) relative to photon therapy for prostate cancer (PC) continue to be the focus of debate. Although trials comparing the two modalities are underway, most are being conducted using "conventional" PBT (passive scattering/uniform scanning [PS/US]) rather than pencil beam scanning (PBS). The dosimetric benefits of PBS are well-known, but comparative data are limited. This analysis compares PBS toxicity rates with those of PS/US in a prospective multicenter registry. METHODS: We evaluated acute/late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity rates for men with low-to-intermediate risk PC enrolled in PCG 001-09. Acute toxicities with the two techniques were compared using χ2 tests, and the cumulative incidence methods for late toxicity. Multivariable analyses (MVAs) for acute toxicity were performed using logistic regression, and cox proportional hazards models for late toxicity. RESULTS: Patients were treated using PS/US (n = 1105) or PBS (n = 238). Acute grade ≥2 GI toxicity in PBS did not significantly differ from that with PS/US (2.9% and 2.1%, respectively; P = 0.47). Acute grade ≥2 GU toxicity was significantly higher with PBS (21.9% and 15.1%; P < 0.01). In MVA, PBS was significantly associated with increased acute grade ≥2 GU toxicity (RR = 1.57, p < 0.001). Late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicities did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first multi-institutional comparative effectiveness evaluation of PBT techniques in PC. Differences in acute GU toxicity warrant further evaluation, and highlight the urgent need for prospective data using PBT.

Proton beam therapy reirradiation for breast cancer: Multi-institutional prospective PCG registry analysis.

To investigate adverse events (AEs, CTCAE v4.0) and clinical outcomes for proton beam therapy (PBT) reirradiation (reRT) for breast cancer. From 2011 to 2016, 50 patients received PBT reRT for breast cancer in the prospective Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) registry. Acute AEs occurred within 180 days from start of reRT. Late AEs began or persisted beyond 180 days. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests were utilized. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and local recurrence-free survival (LFRS). Median follow-up was 12.7 months (0-41.8). Median prior RT dose was 60 Gy (10-96.7). Median reRT dose was 55.1 Gy (45.1-76.3). Median cumulative dose was 110.6 Gy (70.6-156.8). Median interval between RT courses was 103.8 months (5.5-430.8). ReRT included regional nodes in 84% (66% internal mammary node [IMN]). Surgery included the following: 44% mastectomy, 22% wide local excision, 6% lumpectomy, 2% reduction mammoplasty, and 26% no surgery. Grade 3 AEs were experienced by 16% of patients (10% acute, 8% late) and were associated with body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 (P = 0.04), bilateral recurrence (P = 0.02), and bilateral reRT (P = 0.004). All grade 3 AEs occurred in patients receiving IMN reRT (P = 0.08). At 1 year, LRFS was 93%, and OS was 97%. Patients with gross disease at time of PBT trended toward worse 1-year LRFS (100% without vs. 84% with, P = 0.06). PBT reRT is well tolerated with favorable local control. BMI > 30, bilateral disease, and IMN reRT were associated with grade 3 AEs. Toxicity was acceptable despite median cumulative dose > 110 Gy.

Minimal toxicity after proton beam therapy for prostate and pelvic nodal irradiation: results from the proton collaborative group REG001-09 trial.

BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) reduces normal organ dose compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMXT) for prostate cancer patients who receive pelvic radiation therapy. It is not known whether this dosimetric advantage results in less gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity than would be expected from IMXT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated treatment parameters and toxicity outcomes for non-metastatic prostate cancer patients who received pelvic radiation therapy and enrolled on the PCG REG001-09 trial. Patients who received X-ray therapy and/or brachytherapy were excluded. Of 3210 total enrolled prostate cancer patients, 85 received prostate and pelvic radiation therapy exclusively with PBT. Most had clinically and radiographically negative lymph nodes although 6 had pelvic nodal disease and one also had para-aortic involvement. Pelvic radiation therapy was delivered using either 2 fields (opposed laterals) or 3 fields (opposed laterals and a posterior beam). Median pelvic dose was 46.9 GyE (range 39.7-56) in 25 fractions (range 24-30). Median boost dose to the prostate +/- seminal vesicles was 30 GyE (range 20-41.4) in 16 fractions (range 10-24). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 14.5 months (range 2.8-49.2). Acute grade 1, 2, and 3 GI toxicity rates were 16.4, 2.4, 0%, respectively. Acute grade 1, 2, and 3 GU toxicity rates were 60, 34.1, 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients who receive pelvic radiation therapy using PBT experience significantly less acute GI toxicity than is expected using IMXT. Further investigation is warranted to confirm whether this favorable acute GI toxicity profile is related to small bowel sparing from PBT.

A Case Study: Proton Therapy for Male Breast Cancer with Previous Irradiation.

This is a case report of a male patient with previous radiation for a thymic carcinoma (20 years ago) who presented with a left breast cancer. He underwent a partial mastectomy followed by proton radiation therapy with a dose of 5040 cGy to the whole breast in 28 fractions with simultaneous boost to 5800 cGy to the lumpectomy cavity. Proton beam therapy was used instead of conventional photon radiation therapy to spare the heart and lung and to avoid any previously irradiated areas. This study describes the technique and comparative dosimetry for this case.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® external-beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Image-based radiation treatment planning and localization have contributed to better targeting of the prostate and sparing of normal tissues. Guidelines are needed to address radiation dose delivery, including patient setup and immobilization, target volume definition, treatment planning, treatment delivery methods, and target localization. Guidelines for external-beam radiation treatment planning have been updated and are presented here. The use of appropriate doses, simulation techniques, and verification of field setup are essential for the accurate delivery of radiation therapy. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Comparison of high-dose proton radiotherapy and brachytherapy in localized prostate cancer: a case-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: To report a case-matched analysis comparing high-dose external-beam radiation (EBRT) for prostate cancer delivered on Proton Radiation Oncology Group (PROG) 95-09, a randomized trial, with permanent prostate brachytherapy over the same era. METHODS: From 1996 to 1999, 196 patients were accrued to the high-dose arm (79.2 Gray equivalent (GyE) using photons and protons) of PROG 95-09 at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Loma Linda University Medical Center. Entry criteria specified T1-2 and prostate-specific antigen ≤ 15 ng/mL. When Gleason score >7 was excluded, 177 men were left for case matching. At Massachusetts General Hospital, 203 similar patients were treated by a single brachytherapist from 1997 to 2002. Minimum follow-up was 3 years. Case matching, based on T stage, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, and age resulted in 141 matches (282 patients). Median follow-up was 8.6 and 7.4 years for EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively. The primary endpoint was biochemical failure (BF). RESULTS: Using the Phoenix definition, the 8-year BF rates were 7.7% and 16.1% for EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively (p = 0.42). A stratified analysis was performed by risk group. In the EBRT group, 113 and 28 patients were low and intermediate risk, respectively. In the brachytherapy group, 118 and 23 were. When stratified by risk group, the BF rates were similar by either technique. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose EBRT and brachytherapy result in similar BF rates for men with localized prostate cancer. Comparative quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness studies are warranted.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® definitive external beam irradiation in stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: : External beam radiation therapy is a standard of care treatment for men who present with clinically localized (T1-T2) prostate cancer. The purpose of this review was to provide clarification on the appropriateness criteria and management considerations for the treatment of prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy. METHODS: : A panel consisting of physicians with expertise on prostate cancer was assembled and provided with a number of clinical scenarios for consensus treatment and management guidelines. Prostate cancer patient vignettes were presented along with specific management recommendations based on an extensive review of the modern external beam radiotherapy literature. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances, where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: : Modern external beam radiation therapy series demonstrate favorable biochemical control rates for patients with localized prostate cancer. Morbidity profiles are also favorable and it is clear that this is enhanced by modern techniques like 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. An active area of investigation is evaluating the use of hypofractionated dosing. CONCLUSIONS: : Continued investigation to refine patient selection, external beam radiation technology application, and alternative dosing schedules should result in further improvements in biochemical outcome and decreased morbidity with external beam radiation treatment for localized prostate cancer.

American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria permanent source brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Permanent prostate brachytherapy has emerged as a standard of care treatment for approximately 50,000 men annually who present with clinically localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this review was to provide clarification on the appropriateness criteria and management considerations for the treatment of prostate cancer with permanent prostate brachytherapy. METHODS: Panel members with expertise on prostate cancer were assembled and provided several clinical scenarios for consensus treatment and management guidelines. Prostate cancer patient vignettes were presented along with specific management recommendations based on an extensive review of the modern brachytherapy literature. The brachytherapy topic development and review consists of two parts which require extensive participation by the expert panel. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria (AC) are derived from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from both the academic and private practice settings. The first activity is a review of the current literature with development of an evidence table, referenced narrative, and ratings table of treatments. The second activity is the consensus-building process using a modified Delphi technique via an anonymous voting process. RESULTS: Most brachytherapy series have demonstrated favorable morbidity profiles and durable biochemical control rates for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk features. However, as brachytherapy followups have matured, it has become increasingly apparent that efficacy and morbidity are highly dependent on implant quality. CONCLUSION: Continued attempts to refine patient selection, brachytherapy treatment planning philosophy, technique, and postimplant management should result in further improvements in biochemical outcome and decreased brachytherapy-related morbidity.

ACR appropriateness criteria postradical prostatectomy irradiation in prostate cancer.

The role of postradical prostatectomy radiation therapy continues to evolve under the influence of new clinical data. In particular, 2 recently published or updated randomized trials have prompted a reevaluation of its utility in the adjuvant and salvage setting. The Southwest Oncology Group 8794 trial randomized 473 patients with stage T3a-T3b disease to adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation. With a median follow-up of 12.7 years, this trial demonstrates an improvement in metastasis-free (93/214 vs. 114/211, P = 0.016) and overall survival (88 vs. 110 deaths, P = 0.023) favoring adjuvant radiotherapy. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 22911 study of 972 patients with at least 1 "high risk" feature at surgery (extracapsular extension, positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle involvement) randomized to immediate adjuvant radiotherapy (60 Gy) versus observation. The freedom from biochemical failure at 5 years was 53% in the observation alone group versus 74% in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (P < 0.0001). This review summarizes the current evidence-based literature supporting the use of postradical prostatectomy radiation therapy in various common clinical settings and will serve to illustrate the appropriateness of postoperative radiotherapy by reviewing its implementation in a variety of commonly occurring clinical scenarios. It is intended to serve both as a guideline for the practicing radiation oncologist and a resource for further learning.

Acute and late toxicity after dose escalation to 82 GyE using conformal proton radiation for localized prostate cancer: initial report of American College of Radiology Phase II study 03-12.

PURPOSE: Several randomized trials have shown a benefit of dose escalation to 78 to 79 Gy for men treated with external radiation for localized prostate cancer. Single-institution data suggest a benefit with even higher doses. American College of Radiology 03-12 is a Phase II trial testing the safety and efficacy of 82 GyE (Gray equivalent) delivered with conformal proton radiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2003-2006, 85 men with localized prostate cancer were accrued to American College of Radiology 03-12. Eighty-four were eligible for analysis. They were treated with conformal proton radiation alone to a total dose of 82 GyE. The study was designed to test whether the rate of 18-month Grade 3+ late toxicity was greater than 10%. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 31.6 months. Regarding treatment-related acute toxicity, there were 39 Grade 1 cases (46%), 19 Grade 2 cases (23%) and 2 Grade 3 cases (2%). Regarding genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicity, there were 42 Grade 1 cases (50%), 12 Grade 2 cases (14%) and 1 Grade 3 case (1%). Regarding late toxicity, there were 28 Grade 1 cases (33%), 22 Grade 2 cases (26%), 6 Grade 3 cases (7%), and 1 Grade 4 case (1%). The late genitourinary/gastrointestinal rates were the same. The estimated rate of Grade 3+ late toxicity at 18 months was 6.08%. CONCLUSIONS: Although not free of late toxicity, 82 GyE at 2 GyE per fraction delivered with conformal proton radiation did not exceed the late morbidity target tested in this trial. There was sufficient morbidity, however, that this may be the maximal dose that can be delivered safely with this technique and fractionation.

Patient-reported long-term outcomes after conventional and high-dose combined proton and photon radiation for early prostate cancer.

CONTEXT: Increased radiation doses improve prostate cancer control but also increase toxicity to adjacent normal tissue. Proton radiation may attenuate adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term, patient-reported, dose-related toxicity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We performed a post hoc cross-sectional survey of surviving participants in the Proton Radiation Oncology Group (PROG) 9509--a randomized trial comparing 70.2 Gy vs 79.2 Gy of combined photon and proton radiation for 393 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage T1b-T2b, prostate-specific antigen <15 ng/mL, and no radiographic evidence of metastasis). The estimated 10-year biochemical progression rate for patients receiving standard dose was 32% (95% confidence interval, 26%-39%) compared with 17% (95% confidence interval, 11%-23%) for patients receiving high dose (P < .001). We surveyed 280 of the surviving 337 patients (83%) from April 2007 to September 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices, a validated measure of urinary incontinence, urinary obstruction and irritation, bowel problems, and sexual dysfunction, and related quality-of-life instruments. RESULTS: At a median of 9.4 years after treatment (range, 7.4-12.1 years), participants' demographic and clinical characteristics were similar. Patient-reported outcomes were reported as mean (SD) scale score for standard dose vs high dose: urinary obstruction/irritation (23.3 [13.7] vs 24.6 [14.0]; P = .36), urinary incontinence (10.6 [17.7] vs 9.7 [15.8]; P = .99), bowel problems (7.7 [7.8] vs 7.9 [9.1]; P = .70), sexual dysfunction (68.2 [34.6] vs 65.9 [34.7]; P = .65), and most other outcomes were also similar, although patients receiving standard dose whose cancers had more often progressed expressed less confidence that their cancers were under control (mean [SD] scale score for standard dose, 76.0 [25.4] vs high dose, 86.2 [17.9]; P < .001). Many patients characterized their urinary and bowel function as normal despite reporting symptoms that, for other prostate cancer patients before and early after cancer treatment, caused substantial distress. CONCLUSION: Among men with clinically localized prostate cancer, treatment with higher-dose radiation compared with standard dose was not associated with an increase in patient-reported prostate cancer symptoms after a median of 9.4 years.