Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.
Sec. Radiation Oncology
Volume 14 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1459732

Late Radiation-Related Lymphopenia After Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Plus or Minus Supplemental Pelvic Irradiation

Provisionally accepted
Kelly Gaudian Kelly Gaudian 1*Min Jung Koh Min Jung Koh 1Min Ji Koh Min Ji Koh 1Irfan Khan Irfan Khan 1*Diya Kallam Diya Kallam 2Zach Lee Zach Lee 1*Ryan R. Collins Ryan R. Collins 1*Zoya Zwart Zoya Zwart 1*Malika Danner Malika Danner 1*Alan Zwart Alan Zwart 1*Deepak Kumar Deepak Kumar 3Michael B. Atkins Michael B. Atkins 4Simeng Suy Simeng Suy 1*Sean P. Collins Sean P. Collins 1*
  • 1 Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, District of Columbia, United States
  • 2 School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, United States
  • 3 The Julius L. Chambers Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
  • 4 Department of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Radiation-related lymphopenia (RRL) has been noted in prostate cancer patients treated with conventionally fractionated pelvic radiation therapy. The impact of hypofractionated high integral dose therapies such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on RRL is less well characterized. This prospective study sought to evaluate the impact of prostate SBRT +/- pelvic nodal radiation (PNI) on RRL. Between 2012 and 2023, serial serum absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) were measured in 226 men treated at MedStar Georgetown with SBRT using the CyberKnife® (CK) (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) alone or CK (19.5 Gy in 3 fractions) followed by PNI using VMAT (37.5-45.0 Gy in 15-25 fractions) per an institutional protocol (IRB#: 2012-1175). Baseline ALC (k/μL) was measured 1-2 hours prior to SBRT and at follow-up appointments. Lymphopenia was graded using the CTCAEv.4. To compare two treatment groups, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. A p-value of < 0.05 determined statistical significance. Of 226 patients (SBRT alone: n = 169, SBRT + PNI: n = 57), the median age was 72 and 45% of patients were non-white. Baseline lymphopenia was uncommon and of low grade. In the SBRT alone group, the baseline ALC of 1.7 k/μl decreased by 21% to 1.4 k/μL at 3 months and then stabilized. 38% of these men experienced lymphopenia, however, no patient presented with Grade 3 lymphopenia. The SBRT + PNI group had a lower baseline ALC (1.5 k/μl), and a significantly greater decrease in ALC relative to baseline, decreasing by 57% to 0.6 k/µL at 3 months and recovering to a 36% decrease from baseline (1.0 k/µL) at 24 months. Notably, 12% of these men experienced Grade 3 lymphopenia. No patient in either cohort experienced Grade 4 lymphopenia. The low incidence of high-grade lymphopenia within this elderly population further supports the safety of SBRT +/- PNI for treatment of prostate cancer. However, RRL was more severe when PNI was utilized. The effect of SBRT and PNI on lymphocytes in prostate cancer patients could act as a model for other cancers, specifically those treated with immunomodulatory agents. Future studies should focus on the clinical implications of RRL.

    Keywords: Lymphopenia, SBRT, supplemental pelvic radiation therapy, prostate cancer, radiation related toxicities

    Received: 04 Jul 2024; Accepted: 11 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Gaudian, Koh, Koh, Khan, Kallam, Lee, Collins, Zwart, Danner, Zwart, Kumar, Atkins, Suy and Collins. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Kelly Gaudian, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Irfan Khan, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Zach Lee, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Ryan R. Collins, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Zoya Zwart, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Malika Danner, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Alan Zwart, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Simeng Suy, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States
    Sean P. Collins, Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, 20007, District of Columbia, United States

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.