Proton Beam Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Results from a Prospective Quality-of-Life Trial.

PURPOSE: To report prostate cancer outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL) in men treated with proton beam therapy (PBT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective trial. All participants received 75.6 to 78 Gy (RBE). Up to 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy was allowed. The Phoenix definition defined biochemical failure. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria defined toxicity. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires objectified QOL. Clinically significant QOL decrement was defined as ≥0.5 × baseline standard deviation. RESULTS: In total, 423 men were analyzed. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification was used (low 43%; intermediate 56%; high 1%). At the 5.2-year median follow-up, overall and disease-specific survival rates were 99.8% and 100%, respectively. Cumulative biochemical failure rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.0%-8.3%); acute grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 46.3%; acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 5.0% (95% CI = 3.1%-7.3%). There was no acute grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity. Cumulative late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity was 15.9% (95% CI = 13%-20%) and 9.7% (95% CI = 6.5%-12%), respectively. There were 2 grade 3 late GI toxicities (rectal bleeding) and no late grade ≥3 GU toxicity. The 4-year mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal summary scores (range; standard deviation) were 89.7 (43.8-100; 11), 91.3 (41.1-94.6; 10), 57.8 (0.0-96.2; 27.1), and 92.2 (25-95.5; 10.5), respectively. Compared with baseline, there was no clinically significant decrement in urinary, sexual, or hormonal QOL after treatment completion. A modest (<10 points), yet clinically significant, decrement in bowel QOL was appreciated throughout follow-up. CONCLUSION: Contemporary PBT resulted in excellent biochemical control, minimal risk of higher-grade toxicity, and modest QOL decrement. Further investigation comparing PBT with alternative prostate cancer treatment strategies are warranted.

Quality of life and toxicity from passively scattered and spot-scanning proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To report quality of life (QOL)/toxicity in men treated with proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer and to compare outcomes between passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) and spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with localized prostate cancer enrolled on a prospective QOL protocol with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were reviewed. Comparative groups were defined by technique (PSPT vs SSPT). Patients completed Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires at baseline and every 3-6 months after proton beam therapy. Clinically meaningful differences in QOL were defined as ≥0.5 × baseline standard deviation. The cumulative incidence of modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity and argon plasma coagulation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 226 men received PSPT, and 65 received SSPT. Both PSPT and SSPT resulted in statistically significant changes in sexual, urinary, and bowel Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite summary scores. Only bowel summary, function, and bother resulted in clinically meaningful decrements beyond treatment completion. The decrement in bowel QOL persisted through 24-month follow-up. Cumulative grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity at 24 months were 13.4% and 9.6%, respectively. There was 1 grade 3 GI toxicity (PSPT group) and no other grade ≥3 GI or GU toxicity. Argon plasma coagulation application was infrequent (PSPT 4.4% vs SSPT 1.5%; P=.21). No statistically significant differences were appreciated between PSPT and SSPT regarding toxicity or QOL. CONCLUSION: Both PSPT and SSPT confer low rates of grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity, with preservation of meaningful sexual and urinary QOL at 24 months. A modest, yet clinically meaningful, decrement in bowel QOL was seen throughout follow-up. No toxicity or QOL differences between PSPT and SSPT were identified. Long-term comparative results in a larger patient cohort are warranted.

Scientific validation of the ethnomedicinal properties of the Ayurvedic drug Triphala: a review.

Triphala, a herbal formula composed of the three fruits of Terminalia chebula Retz. (Haritaki, Family: Combretaceae), Terminalia bellirica Roxb. (Bibhitaki, Family: Combretaceae) and Phyllanthus emblica Linn. or Emblica officinalis Gaertn. (Amalaki or the Indian gooseberry, Family: Euphorbiaceae) is considered to be a universal panacea in the traditional Indian system of medicine the Ayurveda. It has been described in the Ayurveda text as a "Rasayana' and to rejuvenat the debilitated organs. Ayurvedic physicians use Triphala for many ailments but most importantly to treat various gastrointestinal disorders. Scientific studies carried out in the past two decades have validated many of the ethnomedicinal claims and researches have shown Triphala to possess free radical scavenging, antioxidant, antiinflammatory, antipyretic, analgesic, antibacterial, antimutagenic, wound healing, anticariogenic, antistress, adaptogenic, hypoglycaemic, anticancer, chemoprotective, radioprotective and chemopreventive effects. Clinical studies have also shown that Triphala was found to have good laxative property, to improve appetite and reduce gastric hyperacidity. Studies have also shown that Triphala was effective in preventing dental caries and that this effect was equal to that of chlorhexidine. The current review addresses the validated pharmacological properties of Triphala and also emphasizes on aspects that need further investigation for its future clinic application.