Federal Practitioner

Cannabis has a long history of use for medicinal and recreational purposes. Research illustrates the potential benefits and increased prevalence of cannabis use in patients with cancer.¹ Cannabis products have been shown to possess antineoplastic and palliative activity, improving nociceptive and neuropathic pain in addition to chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.^2-5 Despite these developments and changing social attitudes toward cannabis, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on patient perspectives regarding its use, especially in regions where cannabis remains illegal. This knowledge gap is notable among veterans undergoing cancer treatment in states where cannabis is prohibited. Up to 57% of veterans report lifetime marijuana use, making it crucial to understand this population’s cannabis use patterns and potential interactions with cancer treatments.⁶

This observational study sought to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among patients undergoing cancer treatment at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Memphis Healthcare System and evaluate the potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with anticancer therapies.

METHODS

This prospective observational study identified cannabis use among veterans receiving antineoplastic therapy at the Lt. Col. Luke Weathers Jr. VA Medical Center (WJVAMC) and analyzed potential interactions between cannabis products and their cancer treatments. Participants included adults aged > 18 years undergoing antineoplastic therapy at WJVAMC who consented to the study. Data collection involved a written survey approved by the WJVAMC Institutional Review Board and verbal consent from participants. The survey asked participants about their cannabis use in the previous 90 days, including details on quantity, frequency, and method of consumption (eg, inhalation, oral, topical). No incentives were offered for participation.

Surveys from 50 patients who used cannabis were analyzed and their electronic health records were reviewed for sex, age, diagnosis, and antineoplastic regimen. This information was securely stored. A literature review was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Library to explore potential interactions between cannabis and the antineoplastic agents that were prescribed to patients in the study, focusing on toxicity, efficacy, or synergistic effects.

Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on treatment: cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy. Patients undergoing multiple types of therapies were included in each applicable category.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients agreed to participate. Fifty patients (38%) acknowledged using cannabis products within 90 days. The patients that used cannabis products within 90 days of the survey reported the following malignancies: 8 patients (16%) had prostate cancer, 3 patients (6%) had hepatocellular carcinoma, 7 patients (14%) had pancreatic carcinoma, 5 patients (10%) had multiple myeloma, 3 patients (6%) had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 9 patients (18%) had non-small cell lung cancer, 3 patients (6%) had breast cancer, 3 (6%) patients had bladder cancer, 2 patients (4%) had renal cell carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had chronic myeloid leukemia, 1 (2%) patient had renal amyloid, 1 patient (2%) had supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma, 1 patient (2%) had esophageal carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had small cell lung cancer, 1 (2%) patient had gastric cancer, and 1 patient (2%) had follicular lymphoma.

Five (10%) of the cannabis users were female, and 45 (90%) were male. Twenty-nine patients (58%) were aged 66 to 75 years, 16 (32%) were aged 56 to 65 years, 3 (6%) were aged 46 to 55 years, and 2 (4%) were aged 76 to 85 years.

Thirty-five patients (70%) inhaled cannabis as opposed to using it via other formulations or a combination (eg, inhalation and topical). Thirty-eight percent of patients used cannabis once daily, 24% used < 1 daily, and 28% used it ≥ 2 times daily. Five patients (10%) did not report the frequency of their cannabis use. Among the patients who reported cannabis use, 21 (42%) were undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 19 (38%) were undergoing immunotherapy, 12 (24%) were undergoing targeted therapy, and 10 (20%) were undergoing endocrine therapy. Some patients were treated with multiple types of antineoplastic agents and were counted in multiple categories (Table 1).

Following a literature review of cannabis and antineoplastic agents, patients were evaluated for the potential effects of cannabis on their treatment. The literature review revealed that 31% of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents received by patients in this study might have increased toxicity, and 19% could have reduced efficacy when combined with cannabis. Among immunotherapy agents received by patients in this study, 70% might have decreased efficacy when combined with cannabis use. For targeted therapies, 35% could have increased toxicity, and 70% of endocrine agents could potentially have decreased efficacy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

This prospective study corroborates previous research by demonstrating that more than one-third of patients receiving oncology care at WJVAMC use cannabis, most often inhaled. Cannabis use was observed among patients undergoing various cancer therapies, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The most common malignancies among cannabis users at WJVAMC include patients with lung cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and multiple myeloma. Cannabis use in patients with pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma was significantly out of proportion to their prevalence at WJVAMC. This could potentially be due to their drastic effect on quality of life.

Cannabis use increased the risk of toxicity in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Cannabis use potentially decreased efficacy for patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Cannabis use did not increase the risk of toxicity or efficacy in patients treated with endocrine therapy.

Antineoplastics/Cannabis Interactions

The potential interactions between cannabis and antineoplastic therapies administered at WJVAMC are worth exploring. While this review aims to shed light on possible interactions, it is important to acknowledge that much of the data is preliminary and derived from in vitro studies. The interactions should be interpreted as potential risks rather than established facts. Additional research is needed to confirm these interactions and effectively guide clinical practices. Understanding these dynamics is essential to optimize patient care and manage the complex interplay between cannabis use and cancer treatment.

Originating from Central Asia, the cannabis plant contains > 400 medicinally relevant compounds, of which about 100 are cannabinoids (CBs). Key CBs are cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound, and ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive compound. THC can make up 20% to 30% of the dry weight of female cannabis flowers.⁷

CBs act through the endocannabinoid system, involving CB1 and CB2 receptors, endogenous CBs like anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and various enzymes. These endogenous CBs, derived from arachidonic acid, play roles in cell growth and proliferation.⁸ In some studies, AEA has induced apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells and inhibited proliferation in breast cancer cells. However, other research suggests AEA may block apoptosis under certain conditions.⁹

CB receptors are transmembrane proteins that interact with CBs differently depending on tissue type and CB structure. Synthetic CBs are designed to target specific receptors, while natural CBs may act as both agonists and antagonists.¹⁰

Cytochrome P450 Metabolism

The human cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A subfamily affects the metabolism of many therapeutic drugs, including cancer therapeutics.¹¹ The various compositions of cannabis are primarily metabolized by the CYP450 pathway, the same as many cancer-directed pharmacologic treatments. CBs act as both CYP inducers and inhibitors. THC, for example, is a CYP inducer whereas CBD is a CYP inhibitor; both are found in the various compounds available for consumption.^12,13 Pharmacology research has suggested potential interactions and effects on established adverse symptoms, but clinical data are lacking, and current research revealing interactions are only recognized in vitro.¹⁴

The Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabis

CBs can affect various cancer-related pathways such as PKB, AMPK, CAMKK-ß, mTOR, PDHK, HIF-1 a, and PPAR-γ. Δ-9-THC can selectively induce apoptosis in tumor cells without harming normal cells, though the exact mechanism remains unclear. Promising results from early mouse studies led to a 2006 human study where intracranial Δ-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioma yielded a median survival of 24 weeks, with 2 patients surviving > 1 year.¹⁵

In a 2022 review article, Cherkasova et al highlighted potential clinical benefits of cannabis across various cancers. They found that upregulated CB1 receptors in colon cancer might enhance the effect of 5-fluorouracil. However, many studies are preliminary and therefore not definitive.¹⁰

Additional research is needed to refine these findings. Challenges include variability in cannabis formulations, the complex tumor microenvironment, and the legal and psychoactive issues surrounding cannabis use. These factors complicate the design of multicenter randomized studies and may deter patients from disclosing cannabis use, thereby hindering efforts to fully understand its therapeutic potential.

Cannabis/Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Interactions

The chemotherapy agents used in this study included carboplatin, paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, T-DM1, gemcitabine, and cyclophosphamide. There is a paucity of research regarding the interactions between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cannabis. Most studies focused on CBD due to its inhibition of the CYP450 pathway, which is used for metabolizing cytotoxic chemotherapies. Through this mechanism, CBD could potentially increase the concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents, enhancing their toxicity.

When combined with irinotecan, cannabis can pose risks. Δ-9-THC undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver, mediated by the CYP450 system and CYP3A4. The glucuronidation of irinotecan is mediated by uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase, leading to its recirculation within the hepatic system and potentially increased toxicity due to prolonged drug presence. Cannabis may also compete with drug binding to albumin, altering the plasma concentrations of irinotecan and its conversion to the metabolite SN38.¹⁶

Cannabis products can affect chemotherapy levels by interacting with cellular transporters. The MRP1 transporter family, encoded by the ABCC gene family, is expressed mainly in the lung, kidney, skeletal muscle, and hematopoietic stem cells. A 2018 study investigating the effects of THC, CBD, and CBN on MRP1 transporters found that the presence of a cannabis component increased the concentration of vincristine 3-fold. Additional studies suggest the interaction with the CB1 receptor may lead to changes in the expression of MRP1 transporters.¹⁷

CBD inhibits the BCRP transporter, which functions as an efflux pump for methotrexate. Consequently, CBD can increase methotrexate levels, potentially enhancing efficacy but also worsening adverse effects.¹⁸

In pancreatic cancer, CBD specifically interacts with gemcitabine. CB1 and CB2 receptors are upregulated, and CBD inhibits the GPR55 receptor. These interactions may enhance the antineoplastic effect of gemcitabine, reducing cell cycle progression and growth.¹⁹

CBD also interacts with temozolomide (TMZ) by affecting extracellular vesicles used by cells for pro-oncogenic signaling and immune system evasion. Experiments on patient-derived glioblastoma cells, both chemotherapy-resistant and chemotherapy-sensitive, found that CBD increases the formation of extracellular vesicles with reduced levels of miR21 (pro-oncogenic) and elevated levels of miR126 (antioncogenic).²⁰ CBD has also been found to decrease prohibitin levels, a protein associated with TMZ resistance.

In patients with glioblastoma, CBD combined with chemotherapeutic agents like TMZ, carmustine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin has shown increased sensitivity and improved tumor response. CBD is also known to inhibit NF-kB, a pathway that sustains tumor viability despite chemotherapy.²¹ Additionally, CBD inhibits the P-glycoprotein system, affecting chemotherapy efflux from neoplastic cells.¹⁴ In vitro studies have found that CBD is synergistic with bortezomib in inhibiting cancer cell viability. In another glioblastoma model, CBD enhanced the antiproliferative effects of both TMZ and carmustine.¹⁴

Different cannabis formulations may vary in how they interact with various cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. Some may potentiate the effects of chemotherapy and act synergistically to inhibit tumor growth, while others may lead to increased toxicity.¹⁰ More research is needed to determine which formulations, in combination with specific agents and doses, may have significant interactions that warrant adjustments in chemotherapy dosing.

Cannabis/Immunotherapy Interactions

Cannabis is an immunosuppressant. Data suggest the use of cannabis during immunotherapy worsens treatment outcomes in patients with cancer.²² Exogenous (THC) and endogenous (AEA) CBs negatively affect antitumor immunity by impairing the function of tumor-specific T cells via CB2 and by inhibiting the Jak1-STATs signaling in T cells through CNR2. Xiong et al found that THC reduces the therapeutic effect of anti-PD-1 therapy.²²

In a prospective observational clinical study, Bar-Sela et al analyzed 102 patients with advanced cancer—of which 68 were cannabis users—that were started on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The study found that cannabis users on anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab, atezolizumab) had a significant decrease in time to treatment progression and overall survival vs cannabis non-users.²³ However, a 2023 study by Waissengrin et al found that concomitant use of medical cannabis with pembrolizumab had no harmful effect in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.²⁴ Time to treatment progression of cannabis users did not differ from cannabis nonusers.²⁵

Cannabis/Endocrine Therapy Interactions

In addition to having direct antineoplastic activity on tumor cells, data exist that show how cannabis affects the endocrine system. In animal models, cannabis has been found to suppress the whole hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as other hormones like thyroid, prolactin, and growth hormone. In breast cancer, cannabis competes with estrogen for the estrogen receptor and suppresses growth.²⁶

The endocrine agents used by patients with cancer in this study were antiandrogens like abiraterone, enzalutamide, tamoxifen and anastrozole. Abiraterone is metabolized by CYP450 isoenzymes and uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferases. Cannabis inhibits both processes and therefore may lead to increased toxicities.²⁷ Conversely, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A inducer, and cannabis use during enzalutamide therapy may significantly increase the toxic effects of cannabis.

There is evidence that molecular pathways involving CB receptors and estrogens overlap, which may lead to interactions when antiestrogens are used in cannabis users with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.²⁶ In preclinical studies, tamoxifen has been shown to act as an inverse agonist on CB1 and CB2 receptors, though the significance of this finding is unclear. There is no research evaluating the effects of CBs on tamoxifen treatment. However, CBD has been found to potentiate the effectiveness of anastrozole or exemestane in breast cancer cell lines.²⁸ Dobovišek et al demonstrated no inhibitory effect of CBD on the activity of tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or palbociclib in breast cancer cell lines.²⁹ The interactions between hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and cannabinoids are complex, and the clinical significance of these interactions remains difficult to identify.

Cannabis/Targeted Therapy Interactions

The targeted therapies used by patients in this study included zanubrutinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, acalabrutinib, dabrafenib, trametinib, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, and imatinib. Compared to other classes of cancer treatments, most studies have not demonstrated decreased efficacy or increased toxicity of targeted anticancer drugs when used concomitantly with CBD.²⁹

Trastuzumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the proto-oncogene HER2/neu. It is used to treat select patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies have shown that cannabis use does not attenuate the effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer subtypes.²⁹ One study found that CBD, in combination with chemotherapeutics and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and zanubrutinib, has synergistic potential for treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines. This synergy is attributed to the CB1 antagonist activity of cannabis against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines.^30,31

Moreover, combining cannabinoids with bevacizumab (a monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody) has been shown to decrease tumor growth and intratumoral hypoxia in clinically relevant human glioblastoma models. This effect is mediated through the downregulation of HIF-1α.³² Long-term studies evaluating the potential harmful or synergistic potential of CBD on targeted anticancer therapy are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study of patients receiving cancer therapy at WJVAMC found a significant prevalence of concurrent cannabis use among patients undergoing antineoplastic treatments. Given that many antineoplastic agents are metabolized by the CYP450 enzyme system, the findings of this study suggest that concurrent cannabis use may pose risks of suboptimal therapeutic outcomes due to potential interactions affecting drug metabolism. These interactions could impact the efficacy and toxicity of the antineoplastic therapies, potentially leading to diminished therapeutic effects or exacerbated adverse reactions.

Patients should be informed regarding the potential decreased efficacy of immunotherapy with concurrent use of cannabis products. They should also be aware of the possibility of increased toxicity with other treatment modalities, though the exact impact on efficacy remains unclear. This highlights the necessity of caution when combining cannabis with prescribed cancer treatments.

While this study identified possible interactions, its data are preliminary and highlight the need for more rigorous research. Future studies should include larger, well-designed cohorts to compare outcomes between cannabis users and nonusers. Such research is essential to fully elucidate the clinical implications of cannabis use during cancer treatment, address the high prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, and mitigate potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with antineoplastic therapies. This will ensure that treatment strategies are optimized for safety and efficacy in this complex patient population.

Cannabis has a long history of use for medicinal and recreational purposes. Research illustrates the potential benefits and increased prevalence of cannabis use in patients with cancer.¹ Cannabis products have been shown to possess antineoplastic and palliative activity, improving nociceptive and neuropathic pain in addition to chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.^2-5 Despite these developments and changing social attitudes toward cannabis, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on patient perspectives regarding its use, especially in regions where cannabis remains illegal. This knowledge gap is notable among veterans undergoing cancer treatment in states where cannabis is prohibited. Up to 57% of veterans report lifetime marijuana use, making it crucial to understand this population’s cannabis use patterns and potential interactions with cancer treatments.⁶

This observational study sought to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among patients undergoing cancer treatment at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Memphis Healthcare System and evaluate the potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with anticancer therapies.

METHODS

This prospective observational study identified cannabis use among veterans receiving antineoplastic therapy at the Lt. Col. Luke Weathers Jr. VA Medical Center (WJVAMC) and analyzed potential interactions between cannabis products and their cancer treatments. Participants included adults aged > 18 years undergoing antineoplastic therapy at WJVAMC who consented to the study. Data collection involved a written survey approved by the WJVAMC Institutional Review Board and verbal consent from participants. The survey asked participants about their cannabis use in the previous 90 days, including details on quantity, frequency, and method of consumption (eg, inhalation, oral, topical). No incentives were offered for participation.

Surveys from 50 patients who used cannabis were analyzed and their electronic health records were reviewed for sex, age, diagnosis, and antineoplastic regimen. This information was securely stored. A literature review was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Library to explore potential interactions between cannabis and the antineoplastic agents that were prescribed to patients in the study, focusing on toxicity, efficacy, or synergistic effects.

Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on treatment: cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy. Patients undergoing multiple types of therapies were included in each applicable category.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients agreed to participate. Fifty patients (38%) acknowledged using cannabis products within 90 days. The patients that used cannabis products within 90 days of the survey reported the following malignancies: 8 patients (16%) had prostate cancer, 3 patients (6%) had hepatocellular carcinoma, 7 patients (14%) had pancreatic carcinoma, 5 patients (10%) had multiple myeloma, 3 patients (6%) had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 9 patients (18%) had non-small cell lung cancer, 3 patients (6%) had breast cancer, 3 (6%) patients had bladder cancer, 2 patients (4%) had renal cell carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had chronic myeloid leukemia, 1 (2%) patient had renal amyloid, 1 patient (2%) had supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma, 1 patient (2%) had esophageal carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had small cell lung cancer, 1 (2%) patient had gastric cancer, and 1 patient (2%) had follicular lymphoma.

Five (10%) of the cannabis users were female, and 45 (90%) were male. Twenty-nine patients (58%) were aged 66 to 75 years, 16 (32%) were aged 56 to 65 years, 3 (6%) were aged 46 to 55 years, and 2 (4%) were aged 76 to 85 years.

Thirty-five patients (70%) inhaled cannabis as opposed to using it via other formulations or a combination (eg, inhalation and topical). Thirty-eight percent of patients used cannabis once daily, 24% used < 1 daily, and 28% used it ≥ 2 times daily. Five patients (10%) did not report the frequency of their cannabis use. Among the patients who reported cannabis use, 21 (42%) were undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 19 (38%) were undergoing immunotherapy, 12 (24%) were undergoing targeted therapy, and 10 (20%) were undergoing endocrine therapy. Some patients were treated with multiple types of antineoplastic agents and were counted in multiple categories (Table 1).

Following a literature review of cannabis and antineoplastic agents, patients were evaluated for the potential effects of cannabis on their treatment. The literature review revealed that 31% of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents received by patients in this study might have increased toxicity, and 19% could have reduced efficacy when combined with cannabis. Among immunotherapy agents received by patients in this study, 70% might have decreased efficacy when combined with cannabis use. For targeted therapies, 35% could have increased toxicity, and 70% of endocrine agents could potentially have decreased efficacy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

This prospective study corroborates previous research by demonstrating that more than one-third of patients receiving oncology care at WJVAMC use cannabis, most often inhaled. Cannabis use was observed among patients undergoing various cancer therapies, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The most common malignancies among cannabis users at WJVAMC include patients with lung cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and multiple myeloma. Cannabis use in patients with pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma was significantly out of proportion to their prevalence at WJVAMC. This could potentially be due to their drastic effect on quality of life.

Cannabis use increased the risk of toxicity in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Cannabis use potentially decreased efficacy for patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Cannabis use did not increase the risk of toxicity or efficacy in patients treated with endocrine therapy.

Antineoplastics/Cannabis Interactions

The potential interactions between cannabis and antineoplastic therapies administered at WJVAMC are worth exploring. While this review aims to shed light on possible interactions, it is important to acknowledge that much of the data is preliminary and derived from in vitro studies. The interactions should be interpreted as potential risks rather than established facts. Additional research is needed to confirm these interactions and effectively guide clinical practices. Understanding these dynamics is essential to optimize patient care and manage the complex interplay between cannabis use and cancer treatment.

Originating from Central Asia, the cannabis plant contains > 400 medicinally relevant compounds, of which about 100 are cannabinoids (CBs). Key CBs are cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound, and ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive compound. THC can make up 20% to 30% of the dry weight of female cannabis flowers.⁷

CBs act through the endocannabinoid system, involving CB1 and CB2 receptors, endogenous CBs like anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and various enzymes. These endogenous CBs, derived from arachidonic acid, play roles in cell growth and proliferation.⁸ In some studies, AEA has induced apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells and inhibited proliferation in breast cancer cells. However, other research suggests AEA may block apoptosis under certain conditions.⁹

CB receptors are transmembrane proteins that interact with CBs differently depending on tissue type and CB structure. Synthetic CBs are designed to target specific receptors, while natural CBs may act as both agonists and antagonists.¹⁰

Cytochrome P450 Metabolism

The human cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A subfamily affects the metabolism of many therapeutic drugs, including cancer therapeutics.¹¹ The various compositions of cannabis are primarily metabolized by the CYP450 pathway, the same as many cancer-directed pharmacologic treatments. CBs act as both CYP inducers and inhibitors. THC, for example, is a CYP inducer whereas CBD is a CYP inhibitor; both are found in the various compounds available for consumption.^12,13 Pharmacology research has suggested potential interactions and effects on established adverse symptoms, but clinical data are lacking, and current research revealing interactions are only recognized in vitro.¹⁴

The Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabis

CBs can affect various cancer-related pathways such as PKB, AMPK, CAMKK-ß, mTOR, PDHK, HIF-1 a, and PPAR-γ. Δ-9-THC can selectively induce apoptosis in tumor cells without harming normal cells, though the exact mechanism remains unclear. Promising results from early mouse studies led to a 2006 human study where intracranial Δ-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioma yielded a median survival of 24 weeks, with 2 patients surviving > 1 year.¹⁵

In a 2022 review article, Cherkasova et al highlighted potential clinical benefits of cannabis across various cancers. They found that upregulated CB1 receptors in colon cancer might enhance the effect of 5-fluorouracil. However, many studies are preliminary and therefore not definitive.¹⁰

Additional research is needed to refine these findings. Challenges include variability in cannabis formulations, the complex tumor microenvironment, and the legal and psychoactive issues surrounding cannabis use. These factors complicate the design of multicenter randomized studies and may deter patients from disclosing cannabis use, thereby hindering efforts to fully understand its therapeutic potential.

Cannabis/Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Interactions

The chemotherapy agents used in this study included carboplatin, paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, T-DM1, gemcitabine, and cyclophosphamide. There is a paucity of research regarding the interactions between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cannabis. Most studies focused on CBD due to its inhibition of the CYP450 pathway, which is used for metabolizing cytotoxic chemotherapies. Through this mechanism, CBD could potentially increase the concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents, enhancing their toxicity.

When combined with irinotecan, cannabis can pose risks. Δ-9-THC undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver, mediated by the CYP450 system and CYP3A4. The glucuronidation of irinotecan is mediated by uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase, leading to its recirculation within the hepatic system and potentially increased toxicity due to prolonged drug presence. Cannabis may also compete with drug binding to albumin, altering the plasma concentrations of irinotecan and its conversion to the metabolite SN38.¹⁶

Cannabis products can affect chemotherapy levels by interacting with cellular transporters. The MRP1 transporter family, encoded by the ABCC gene family, is expressed mainly in the lung, kidney, skeletal muscle, and hematopoietic stem cells. A 2018 study investigating the effects of THC, CBD, and CBN on MRP1 transporters found that the presence of a cannabis component increased the concentration of vincristine 3-fold. Additional studies suggest the interaction with the CB1 receptor may lead to changes in the expression of MRP1 transporters.¹⁷

CBD inhibits the BCRP transporter, which functions as an efflux pump for methotrexate. Consequently, CBD can increase methotrexate levels, potentially enhancing efficacy but also worsening adverse effects.¹⁸

In pancreatic cancer, CBD specifically interacts with gemcitabine. CB1 and CB2 receptors are upregulated, and CBD inhibits the GPR55 receptor. These interactions may enhance the antineoplastic effect of gemcitabine, reducing cell cycle progression and growth.¹⁹

CBD also interacts with temozolomide (TMZ) by affecting extracellular vesicles used by cells for pro-oncogenic signaling and immune system evasion. Experiments on patient-derived glioblastoma cells, both chemotherapy-resistant and chemotherapy-sensitive, found that CBD increases the formation of extracellular vesicles with reduced levels of miR21 (pro-oncogenic) and elevated levels of miR126 (antioncogenic).²⁰ CBD has also been found to decrease prohibitin levels, a protein associated with TMZ resistance.

In patients with glioblastoma, CBD combined with chemotherapeutic agents like TMZ, carmustine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin has shown increased sensitivity and improved tumor response. CBD is also known to inhibit NF-kB, a pathway that sustains tumor viability despite chemotherapy.²¹ Additionally, CBD inhibits the P-glycoprotein system, affecting chemotherapy efflux from neoplastic cells.¹⁴ In vitro studies have found that CBD is synergistic with bortezomib in inhibiting cancer cell viability. In another glioblastoma model, CBD enhanced the antiproliferative effects of both TMZ and carmustine.¹⁴

Different cannabis formulations may vary in how they interact with various cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. Some may potentiate the effects of chemotherapy and act synergistically to inhibit tumor growth, while others may lead to increased toxicity.¹⁰ More research is needed to determine which formulations, in combination with specific agents and doses, may have significant interactions that warrant adjustments in chemotherapy dosing.

Cannabis/Immunotherapy Interactions

Cannabis is an immunosuppressant. Data suggest the use of cannabis during immunotherapy worsens treatment outcomes in patients with cancer.²² Exogenous (THC) and endogenous (AEA) CBs negatively affect antitumor immunity by impairing the function of tumor-specific T cells via CB2 and by inhibiting the Jak1-STATs signaling in T cells through CNR2. Xiong et al found that THC reduces the therapeutic effect of anti-PD-1 therapy.²²

In a prospective observational clinical study, Bar-Sela et al analyzed 102 patients with advanced cancer—of which 68 were cannabis users—that were started on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The study found that cannabis users on anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab, atezolizumab) had a significant decrease in time to treatment progression and overall survival vs cannabis non-users.²³ However, a 2023 study by Waissengrin et al found that concomitant use of medical cannabis with pembrolizumab had no harmful effect in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.²⁴ Time to treatment progression of cannabis users did not differ from cannabis nonusers.²⁵

Cannabis/Endocrine Therapy Interactions

In addition to having direct antineoplastic activity on tumor cells, data exist that show how cannabis affects the endocrine system. In animal models, cannabis has been found to suppress the whole hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as other hormones like thyroid, prolactin, and growth hormone. In breast cancer, cannabis competes with estrogen for the estrogen receptor and suppresses growth.²⁶

The endocrine agents used by patients with cancer in this study were antiandrogens like abiraterone, enzalutamide, tamoxifen and anastrozole. Abiraterone is metabolized by CYP450 isoenzymes and uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferases. Cannabis inhibits both processes and therefore may lead to increased toxicities.²⁷ Conversely, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A inducer, and cannabis use during enzalutamide therapy may significantly increase the toxic effects of cannabis.

There is evidence that molecular pathways involving CB receptors and estrogens overlap, which may lead to interactions when antiestrogens are used in cannabis users with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.²⁶ In preclinical studies, tamoxifen has been shown to act as an inverse agonist on CB1 and CB2 receptors, though the significance of this finding is unclear. There is no research evaluating the effects of CBs on tamoxifen treatment. However, CBD has been found to potentiate the effectiveness of anastrozole or exemestane in breast cancer cell lines.²⁸ Dobovišek et al demonstrated no inhibitory effect of CBD on the activity of tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or palbociclib in breast cancer cell lines.²⁹ The interactions between hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and cannabinoids are complex, and the clinical significance of these interactions remains difficult to identify.

Cannabis/Targeted Therapy Interactions

The targeted therapies used by patients in this study included zanubrutinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, acalabrutinib, dabrafenib, trametinib, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, and imatinib. Compared to other classes of cancer treatments, most studies have not demonstrated decreased efficacy or increased toxicity of targeted anticancer drugs when used concomitantly with CBD.²⁹

Trastuzumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the proto-oncogene HER2/neu. It is used to treat select patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies have shown that cannabis use does not attenuate the effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer subtypes.²⁹ One study found that CBD, in combination with chemotherapeutics and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and zanubrutinib, has synergistic potential for treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines. This synergy is attributed to the CB1 antagonist activity of cannabis against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines.^30,31

Moreover, combining cannabinoids with bevacizumab (a monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody) has been shown to decrease tumor growth and intratumoral hypoxia in clinically relevant human glioblastoma models. This effect is mediated through the downregulation of HIF-1α.³² Long-term studies evaluating the potential harmful or synergistic potential of CBD on targeted anticancer therapy are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study of patients receiving cancer therapy at WJVAMC found a significant prevalence of concurrent cannabis use among patients undergoing antineoplastic treatments. Given that many antineoplastic agents are metabolized by the CYP450 enzyme system, the findings of this study suggest that concurrent cannabis use may pose risks of suboptimal therapeutic outcomes due to potential interactions affecting drug metabolism. These interactions could impact the efficacy and toxicity of the antineoplastic therapies, potentially leading to diminished therapeutic effects or exacerbated adverse reactions.

Patients should be informed regarding the potential decreased efficacy of immunotherapy with concurrent use of cannabis products. They should also be aware of the possibility of increased toxicity with other treatment modalities, though the exact impact on efficacy remains unclear. This highlights the necessity of caution when combining cannabis with prescribed cancer treatments.

While this study identified possible interactions, its data are preliminary and highlight the need for more rigorous research. Future studies should include larger, well-designed cohorts to compare outcomes between cannabis users and nonusers. Such research is essential to fully elucidate the clinical implications of cannabis use during cancer treatment, address the high prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, and mitigate potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with antineoplastic therapies. This will ensure that treatment strategies are optimized for safety and efficacy in this complex patient population.

Cannabis has a long history of use for medicinal and recreational purposes. Research illustrates the potential benefits and increased prevalence of cannabis use in patients with cancer.¹ Cannabis products have been shown to possess antineoplastic and palliative activity, improving nociceptive and neuropathic pain in addition to chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.^2-5 Despite these developments and changing social attitudes toward cannabis, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on patient perspectives regarding its use, especially in regions where cannabis remains illegal. This knowledge gap is notable among veterans undergoing cancer treatment in states where cannabis is prohibited. Up to 57% of veterans report lifetime marijuana use, making it crucial to understand this population’s cannabis use patterns and potential interactions with cancer treatments.⁶

This observational study sought to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among patients undergoing cancer treatment at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Memphis Healthcare System and evaluate the potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with anticancer therapies.

METHODS

This prospective observational study identified cannabis use among veterans receiving antineoplastic therapy at the Lt. Col. Luke Weathers Jr. VA Medical Center (WJVAMC) and analyzed potential interactions between cannabis products and their cancer treatments. Participants included adults aged > 18 years undergoing antineoplastic therapy at WJVAMC who consented to the study. Data collection involved a written survey approved by the WJVAMC Institutional Review Board and verbal consent from participants. The survey asked participants about their cannabis use in the previous 90 days, including details on quantity, frequency, and method of consumption (eg, inhalation, oral, topical). No incentives were offered for participation.

Surveys from 50 patients who used cannabis were analyzed and their electronic health records were reviewed for sex, age, diagnosis, and antineoplastic regimen. This information was securely stored. A literature review was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Library to explore potential interactions between cannabis and the antineoplastic agents that were prescribed to patients in the study, focusing on toxicity, efficacy, or synergistic effects.

Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on treatment: cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy. Patients undergoing multiple types of therapies were included in each applicable category.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients agreed to participate. Fifty patients (38%) acknowledged using cannabis products within 90 days. The patients that used cannabis products within 90 days of the survey reported the following malignancies: 8 patients (16%) had prostate cancer, 3 patients (6%) had hepatocellular carcinoma, 7 patients (14%) had pancreatic carcinoma, 5 patients (10%) had multiple myeloma, 3 patients (6%) had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 9 patients (18%) had non-small cell lung cancer, 3 patients (6%) had breast cancer, 3 (6%) patients had bladder cancer, 2 patients (4%) had renal cell carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had chronic myeloid leukemia, 1 (2%) patient had renal amyloid, 1 patient (2%) had supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma, 1 patient (2%) had esophageal carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had small cell lung cancer, 1 (2%) patient had gastric cancer, and 1 patient (2%) had follicular lymphoma.

Five (10%) of the cannabis users were female, and 45 (90%) were male. Twenty-nine patients (58%) were aged 66 to 75 years, 16 (32%) were aged 56 to 65 years, 3 (6%) were aged 46 to 55 years, and 2 (4%) were aged 76 to 85 years.

Thirty-five patients (70%) inhaled cannabis as opposed to using it via other formulations or a combination (eg, inhalation and topical). Thirty-eight percent of patients used cannabis once daily, 24% used < 1 daily, and 28% used it ≥ 2 times daily. Five patients (10%) did not report the frequency of their cannabis use. Among the patients who reported cannabis use, 21 (42%) were undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 19 (38%) were undergoing immunotherapy, 12 (24%) were undergoing targeted therapy, and 10 (20%) were undergoing endocrine therapy. Some patients were treated with multiple types of antineoplastic agents and were counted in multiple categories (Table 1).

Following a literature review of cannabis and antineoplastic agents, patients were evaluated for the potential effects of cannabis on their treatment. The literature review revealed that 31% of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents received by patients in this study might have increased toxicity, and 19% could have reduced efficacy when combined with cannabis. Among immunotherapy agents received by patients in this study, 70% might have decreased efficacy when combined with cannabis use. For targeted therapies, 35% could have increased toxicity, and 70% of endocrine agents could potentially have decreased efficacy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

This prospective study corroborates previous research by demonstrating that more than one-third of patients receiving oncology care at WJVAMC use cannabis, most often inhaled. Cannabis use was observed among patients undergoing various cancer therapies, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The most common malignancies among cannabis users at WJVAMC include patients with lung cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and multiple myeloma. Cannabis use in patients with pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma was significantly out of proportion to their prevalence at WJVAMC. This could potentially be due to their drastic effect on quality of life.

Cannabis use increased the risk of toxicity in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Cannabis use potentially decreased efficacy for patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Cannabis use did not increase the risk of toxicity or efficacy in patients treated with endocrine therapy.

Antineoplastics/Cannabis Interactions

The potential interactions between cannabis and antineoplastic therapies administered at WJVAMC are worth exploring. While this review aims to shed light on possible interactions, it is important to acknowledge that much of the data is preliminary and derived from in vitro studies. The interactions should be interpreted as potential risks rather than established facts. Additional research is needed to confirm these interactions and effectively guide clinical practices. Understanding these dynamics is essential to optimize patient care and manage the complex interplay between cannabis use and cancer treatment.

Originating from Central Asia, the cannabis plant contains > 400 medicinally relevant compounds, of which about 100 are cannabinoids (CBs). Key CBs are cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound, and ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive compound. THC can make up 20% to 30% of the dry weight of female cannabis flowers.⁷

CBs act through the endocannabinoid system, involving CB1 and CB2 receptors, endogenous CBs like anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and various enzymes. These endogenous CBs, derived from arachidonic acid, play roles in cell growth and proliferation.⁸ In some studies, AEA has induced apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells and inhibited proliferation in breast cancer cells. However, other research suggests AEA may block apoptosis under certain conditions.⁹

CB receptors are transmembrane proteins that interact with CBs differently depending on tissue type and CB structure. Synthetic CBs are designed to target specific receptors, while natural CBs may act as both agonists and antagonists.¹⁰

Cytochrome P450 Metabolism

The human cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A subfamily affects the metabolism of many therapeutic drugs, including cancer therapeutics.¹¹ The various compositions of cannabis are primarily metabolized by the CYP450 pathway, the same as many cancer-directed pharmacologic treatments. CBs act as both CYP inducers and inhibitors. THC, for example, is a CYP inducer whereas CBD is a CYP inhibitor; both are found in the various compounds available for consumption.^12,13 Pharmacology research has suggested potential interactions and effects on established adverse symptoms, but clinical data are lacking, and current research revealing interactions are only recognized in vitro.¹⁴

The Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabis

CBs can affect various cancer-related pathways such as PKB, AMPK, CAMKK-ß, mTOR, PDHK, HIF-1 a, and PPAR-γ. Δ-9-THC can selectively induce apoptosis in tumor cells without harming normal cells, though the exact mechanism remains unclear. Promising results from early mouse studies led to a 2006 human study where intracranial Δ-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioma yielded a median survival of 24 weeks, with 2 patients surviving > 1 year.¹⁵

In a 2022 review article, Cherkasova et al highlighted potential clinical benefits of cannabis across various cancers. They found that upregulated CB1 receptors in colon cancer might enhance the effect of 5-fluorouracil. However, many studies are preliminary and therefore not definitive.¹⁰

Additional research is needed to refine these findings. Challenges include variability in cannabis formulations, the complex tumor microenvironment, and the legal and psychoactive issues surrounding cannabis use. These factors complicate the design of multicenter randomized studies and may deter patients from disclosing cannabis use, thereby hindering efforts to fully understand its therapeutic potential.

Cannabis/Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Interactions

The chemotherapy agents used in this study included carboplatin, paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, T-DM1, gemcitabine, and cyclophosphamide. There is a paucity of research regarding the interactions between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cannabis. Most studies focused on CBD due to its inhibition of the CYP450 pathway, which is used for metabolizing cytotoxic chemotherapies. Through this mechanism, CBD could potentially increase the concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents, enhancing their toxicity.

When combined with irinotecan, cannabis can pose risks. Δ-9-THC undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver, mediated by the CYP450 system and CYP3A4. The glucuronidation of irinotecan is mediated by uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase, leading to its recirculation within the hepatic system and potentially increased toxicity due to prolonged drug presence. Cannabis may also compete with drug binding to albumin, altering the plasma concentrations of irinotecan and its conversion to the metabolite SN38.¹⁶

Cannabis products can affect chemotherapy levels by interacting with cellular transporters. The MRP1 transporter family, encoded by the ABCC gene family, is expressed mainly in the lung, kidney, skeletal muscle, and hematopoietic stem cells. A 2018 study investigating the effects of THC, CBD, and CBN on MRP1 transporters found that the presence of a cannabis component increased the concentration of vincristine 3-fold. Additional studies suggest the interaction with the CB1 receptor may lead to changes in the expression of MRP1 transporters.¹⁷

CBD inhibits the BCRP transporter, which functions as an efflux pump for methotrexate. Consequently, CBD can increase methotrexate levels, potentially enhancing efficacy but also worsening adverse effects.¹⁸

In pancreatic cancer, CBD specifically interacts with gemcitabine. CB1 and CB2 receptors are upregulated, and CBD inhibits the GPR55 receptor. These interactions may enhance the antineoplastic effect of gemcitabine, reducing cell cycle progression and growth.¹⁹

CBD also interacts with temozolomide (TMZ) by affecting extracellular vesicles used by cells for pro-oncogenic signaling and immune system evasion. Experiments on patient-derived glioblastoma cells, both chemotherapy-resistant and chemotherapy-sensitive, found that CBD increases the formation of extracellular vesicles with reduced levels of miR21 (pro-oncogenic) and elevated levels of miR126 (antioncogenic).²⁰ CBD has also been found to decrease prohibitin levels, a protein associated with TMZ resistance.

In patients with glioblastoma, CBD combined with chemotherapeutic agents like TMZ, carmustine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin has shown increased sensitivity and improved tumor response. CBD is also known to inhibit NF-kB, a pathway that sustains tumor viability despite chemotherapy.²¹ Additionally, CBD inhibits the P-glycoprotein system, affecting chemotherapy efflux from neoplastic cells.¹⁴ In vitro studies have found that CBD is synergistic with bortezomib in inhibiting cancer cell viability. In another glioblastoma model, CBD enhanced the antiproliferative effects of both TMZ and carmustine.¹⁴

Different cannabis formulations may vary in how they interact with various cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. Some may potentiate the effects of chemotherapy and act synergistically to inhibit tumor growth, while others may lead to increased toxicity.¹⁰ More research is needed to determine which formulations, in combination with specific agents and doses, may have significant interactions that warrant adjustments in chemotherapy dosing.

Cannabis/Immunotherapy Interactions

Cannabis is an immunosuppressant. Data suggest the use of cannabis during immunotherapy worsens treatment outcomes in patients with cancer.²² Exogenous (THC) and endogenous (AEA) CBs negatively affect antitumor immunity by impairing the function of tumor-specific T cells via CB2 and by inhibiting the Jak1-STATs signaling in T cells through CNR2. Xiong et al found that THC reduces the therapeutic effect of anti-PD-1 therapy.²²

In a prospective observational clinical study, Bar-Sela et al analyzed 102 patients with advanced cancer—of which 68 were cannabis users—that were started on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The study found that cannabis users on anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab, atezolizumab) had a significant decrease in time to treatment progression and overall survival vs cannabis non-users.²³ However, a 2023 study by Waissengrin et al found that concomitant use of medical cannabis with pembrolizumab had no harmful effect in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.²⁴ Time to treatment progression of cannabis users did not differ from cannabis nonusers.²⁵

Cannabis/Endocrine Therapy Interactions

In addition to having direct antineoplastic activity on tumor cells, data exist that show how cannabis affects the endocrine system. In animal models, cannabis has been found to suppress the whole hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as other hormones like thyroid, prolactin, and growth hormone. In breast cancer, cannabis competes with estrogen for the estrogen receptor and suppresses growth.²⁶

The endocrine agents used by patients with cancer in this study were antiandrogens like abiraterone, enzalutamide, tamoxifen and anastrozole. Abiraterone is metabolized by CYP450 isoenzymes and uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferases. Cannabis inhibits both processes and therefore may lead to increased toxicities.²⁷ Conversely, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A inducer, and cannabis use during enzalutamide therapy may significantly increase the toxic effects of cannabis.

There is evidence that molecular pathways involving CB receptors and estrogens overlap, which may lead to interactions when antiestrogens are used in cannabis users with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.²⁶ In preclinical studies, tamoxifen has been shown to act as an inverse agonist on CB1 and CB2 receptors, though the significance of this finding is unclear. There is no research evaluating the effects of CBs on tamoxifen treatment. However, CBD has been found to potentiate the effectiveness of anastrozole or exemestane in breast cancer cell lines.²⁸ Dobovišek et al demonstrated no inhibitory effect of CBD on the activity of tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or palbociclib in breast cancer cell lines.²⁹ The interactions between hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and cannabinoids are complex, and the clinical significance of these interactions remains difficult to identify.

Cannabis/Targeted Therapy Interactions

The targeted therapies used by patients in this study included zanubrutinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, acalabrutinib, dabrafenib, trametinib, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, and imatinib. Compared to other classes of cancer treatments, most studies have not demonstrated decreased efficacy or increased toxicity of targeted anticancer drugs when used concomitantly with CBD.²⁹

Trastuzumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the proto-oncogene HER2/neu. It is used to treat select patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies have shown that cannabis use does not attenuate the effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer subtypes.²⁹ One study found that CBD, in combination with chemotherapeutics and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and zanubrutinib, has synergistic potential for treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines. This synergy is attributed to the CB1 antagonist activity of cannabis against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines.^30,31

Moreover, combining cannabinoids with bevacizumab (a monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody) has been shown to decrease tumor growth and intratumoral hypoxia in clinically relevant human glioblastoma models. This effect is mediated through the downregulation of HIF-1α.³² Long-term studies evaluating the potential harmful or synergistic potential of CBD on targeted anticancer therapy are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study of patients receiving cancer therapy at WJVAMC found a significant prevalence of concurrent cannabis use among patients undergoing antineoplastic treatments. Given that many antineoplastic agents are metabolized by the CYP450 enzyme system, the findings of this study suggest that concurrent cannabis use may pose risks of suboptimal therapeutic outcomes due to potential interactions affecting drug metabolism. These interactions could impact the efficacy and toxicity of the antineoplastic therapies, potentially leading to diminished therapeutic effects or exacerbated adverse reactions.

Patients should be informed regarding the potential decreased efficacy of immunotherapy with concurrent use of cannabis products. They should also be aware of the possibility of increased toxicity with other treatment modalities, though the exact impact on efficacy remains unclear. This highlights the necessity of caution when combining cannabis with prescribed cancer treatments.

While this study identified possible interactions, its data are preliminary and highlight the need for more rigorous research. Future studies should include larger, well-designed cohorts to compare outcomes between cannabis users and nonusers. Such research is essential to fully elucidate the clinical implications of cannabis use during cancer treatment, address the high prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, and mitigate potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with antineoplastic therapies. This will ensure that treatment strategies are optimized for safety and efficacy in this complex patient population.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in US males, with an estimated 313,780 new cases and 35,770 deaths in 2025.¹ Several treatment options are available for localized prostate cancer that have similar outcomes, including active surveillance for low-risk cancers, surgery, or radiotherapy.^2,3 Conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) with 40 to 45 fractions over 8 to 9 weeks has been used for decades. Over the past 2 decades, moderate hypofractionation schedules with 2.4 to 3.4 Gy per fraction over 20 to 28 fractions have become standard, as many noninferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) such as CHHiP (UK),⁴ PROFIT (Canada and Europe),⁵ NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 (US),⁶ HYPRO (Netherlands),^7,8 and HYPO-RT-PC (Sweden and Denmark),⁹ have shown the noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with CFRT. Notably, most of these noninferiority studies primarily included patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, except for the HYPO-RT-PC trial,⁹ which also included patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

These noninferiority studies, along with technological advances in radiotherapy, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), paved the path to ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) that is delivered in 5 fractions of ≥ 6 Gy. This high dose per fraction may have a radiobiologic advantage over conventional fractionation. The relatively low a/ß ratio of prostate cancer, estimated to be between 1 and 2, suggests that tumor cells may be particularly sensitive to the high doses per fraction delivered in SBRT.^10-13 Compared with CFRT, SBRT-induced tumor cell death may also be mediated through different pathways; this pathway appears to be generated in a dose-dependent manner, particularly with doses > 8 Gy per fraction.^14,15 Additionally, the higher a/ß ratio for the surrounding organs at risk, such as the bladder and rectum, theoretically allows for an improved therapeutic ratio window that maximizes tumor control while minimizing damage to healthy tissues.

A substantial body of evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses supports the use of SBRT for localized prostate cancer. HYPO-RT-PC, a significant phase 3 noninferiority study, enrolled 1200 patients with intermediate (89%) and high-risk (11%) prostate cancer randomized between 2 arms, including CFRT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions and SBRT to 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, treated 3 days weekly. After a median follow-up of 60 months, the estimated 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 84% in both groups.⁹ This trial was notable because it was the first randomized study to demonstrate that SBRT was noninferior to CFRT in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. Another pivotal phase 3 trial, the PACE-B study, enrolled 874 patients to compare SBRT (36.25 Gy to the prostate gland, with a secondary dose of 40 Gy to the gross tumor volume where applicable, in 5 fractions) with CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) (62 Gy in 20 fractions) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. With a 74-month median follow-up, the study reported 5-year biochemical free rates of 94.6% for CFRT and 95.8% for SBRT, confirming the noninferiority of SBRT to CFRT.¹⁵

SBRT offers short, effective, and convenient treatment to many patients with localized prostate cancer. While previous guidelines were more restrictive, the March 2026 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines now list SBRT as a preferred treatment modality for high-risk prostate cancer.¹⁶

Given the growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of SBRT, we implemented an SBRT program in 2014 at a tertiary care center for veterans. This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the early efficacy and toxicity of SBRT in patients with localized prostate cancer treated at our institution, including patients across all risk stratifications.

METHODS

We identified 242 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent SBRT treatment between November 2014 and October 2024 at Overland Park Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Clinic. For the final analysis, 46 patients with < 2 years of follow-up and 22 patients who died from causes other than prostate cancer were excluded, resulting in a cohort of 174 patients with ≥ 24-month follow-up.

Treatment

Patients eligible for staging underwent imaging according to NCCN guidelines, including computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, bone scintigraphy, or, in recent years, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography, primarily used for unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) and high-risk (HR) cancers. Patients with a negative staging work-up for nodal or skeletal disease were included. Prior to planning the CT simulation, patients were given bowel preparation instructions, including a low-fiber and low-gas-producing diet, simethicone, and enemas, the night before and morning of the simulation. Patients were instructed to arrive with a comfortably full bladder, having not voided for 2 to 3 hours prior to the procedure. At Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (KCVAMC), SBRT treatment was generally restricted to patients with a baseline American Urological Association symptom score of 15 to 20 out of 35 and a prostate gland size < 80 mL to minimize the risk of acute urinary toxicity. We did not use intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast agents for planning CT simulation.

Patients were placed in a supine position, and a vacuum bag was used for immobilization. Following the CT simulation, the images were transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The clinical target volume (CTV) encompassed the prostate and the proximal 1.0 cm of the seminal vesicles for Gleason score (GS) 1 to 2, and the entire seminal vesicle was included for GS 3 to 5, which is consistent with KCVAMC practice and established safety protocols. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by uniformly expanding the CTV by 5 to 7 mm, except for the posterior margin, which was limited to 3 to 5 mm. When elective nodal radiotherapy was planned for HR prostate cancer, the pelvic field for CT simulation started at the L-2 upper border, with the lower border extending to the lesser trochanter. The pelvic nodes were delineated per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines.¹⁷ The CTV nodes (CTVn), including common iliac, external and internal iliac nodes, obturator, and presacral nodes, were created by uniformly expanding the CTVn by 2 to 3 mm. Slice-by-slice corrections were made to avoid bowel overlap in these patients.

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a duration of 6 to 24 months was prescribed for patients with UIR or HR prostate cancer per NCCN guidelines.¹⁶ The prescribed dose to the PTV was 36.25 to 40 Gy (40 Gy was mostly used as a boost to the dominant lesion) in 5 fractions, with each fraction ranging from 7.25 to 8 Gy. For elective nodal radiotherapy in patients at HR, the prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients were planned for VMAT, which aims to deliver ≥ 95% of the prescription dose to 95% of the PTV. Once the physician approved the treatment plan and physics quality assessment was completed, treatments commenced on an every-other-day schedule. Patients received the same bowel preparation instructions for each treatment as for the planning CT simulation. Daily treatment accuracy was confirmed via daily 3-dimensional cone-beam CT (CBCT) for IGRT. No fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers were used.

Follow-up Schedule and Toxicity Assessment

Follow-up assessments were conducted 4 to 6 weeks after radiation therapy and then repeated every 6 months for 2 to 5 years, and annually thereafter. At each follow-up visit, patients were evaluated for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, according to RTOG toxicity criteria. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were monitored; in patients receiving ADT, testosterone levels were also checked.

Statistical Analysis

Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition (nadir PSA + 2 ng/mL). Differences between dose cohorts were assessed using the log-rank test for survival outcomes and X² testing for categorical variables. GU and GI toxicities were summarized as cumulative incidences of RTOG grade ≥ II events. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the retrospective review. Patients had a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 24-111) (Figure). The median age at treatment was 74 years (range, 51-88), and the median pretreatment PSA level was 11.9 ng/mL (range, 0.6-69.5). Twenty-six patients (14.9%) had a GS 1, 77 (44.3%) had GS 2, 41 (23.6%) had GS 3, 18 (10.3%) had GS 4, and 12 (6.9%) had GS 5. Fifty-one patients (29.3%) received elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy, and 93 patients (53.4%) received ADT (Table 1).

At 24 months follow-up, 6 patients (3.4%) had biochemical failures. One patient died from metastatic prostate cancer, and 5 patients are living with biochemical failure (Table 2). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 99.4%, and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 96.6%. We performed a subanalysis comparing outcomes of the 36.25 Gy vs 40 Gy SBRT cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS, OS, or the cumulative incidence of grade II/III toxicity between patients treated with 40 Gy vs 36.25 Gy. Outcomes stratified by NCCN risk groups (low, intermediate, high/very high) are detailed in Table 3. As expected, DFS was slightly lower in the high-risk group, but overall disease control remained high across all stratifications.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II and higher GU toxicity was 28.2% (Table 4). This included 46 patients (26.4%) with grade II GU toxicity and 2 patients (1.2%) who developed grade III GU complications (1 requiring self-catheterization and another a suprapubic catheter for urinary retention). One patient (0.6%) treated with a 40 Gy dose regimen experienced a grade IV GU complication in the form of a rectovesical fistula necessitating surgical intervention.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II or higher GI toxicity was 3.4%, and no grade III or IV gastrointestinal toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. Importantly, intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast were not routinely used in this cohort of patients.

The high rates of actuarial 5-year DFS and OS observed suggest a favorable initial response to the SBRT regimen employed at KCVAMC. However, given the potential for late recurrence in patients with prostate cancer, longer follow-up is essential to determine the durability of these outcomes. The observed GU toxicity rate of 28.2% for grade II and higher events warrants careful consideration and compares with other published data on SBRT for prostate cancer.¹⁵ The occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula, although rare, is a notable adverse event that warrants discussion in the context of the treatment approach. The low incidence of grade II or higher GI toxicity is an encouraging finding, particularly given that hydrogel rectal spacers are not routinely used to minimize rectal exposure.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of SBRT for patients with localized prostate cancer treated at KCVAMC and to compare these results with those reported in the literature. Our findings demonstrate promising intermediate-term efficacy, with an estimated 5-year DFS of 96.6% and OS of 99.4% at a median follow-up of 45 months. Furthermore, the observed toxicity profile appears acceptable, with a cumulative grade II and higher GU toxicity rate of 28.2% and a grade II or higher GI toxicity rate of 3.4%. Notably, these outcomes were achieved without the routine use of intraprostatic fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers.

Two pivotal randomized phase 3 trials have established the noninferiority of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) with SBRT over conventional fractionation. The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared SBRT (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) with conventional fractionation (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in intermediate- and high-risk patients with prostate cancer and reported a 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival of 84% in both arms.⁹ The PACE-B trial, which included patients at low- and intermediate-risk, compared SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) with conventional or moderate HFRT and reported a 5-year biochemical control rate of 95.8% in the SBRT arm and 94.6% in the control arm.¹⁵

A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 7 phase 3 studies involving 6795 patients compared different radiotherapy regimens, namely, UHRT, HFRT, and CFRT, and reported that after 5 years, the DFS rates were 85.1% for CFRT, 86% for HFRT, and 85% for UHRT, with no significant difference in toxicity among the 3 different treatment approaches.¹⁸ This suggests that shorter, more intense radiotherapy schedules (UHRT and HFRT) may be as effective and safe as traditional, longer courses of radiation.

There are multiple published nonrandomized prospective trials in which thousands of patients with extreme hypofractionation have been treated with different doses, fractions, and techniques. While heterogeneity and limited long-term follow-up in the existing evidence are acknowledged, these data suggest that prostate SBRT provides appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities, supporting its ongoing global use and justifying further prospective investigations. Comparative data are shown in Table 5. Several ongoing studies are evaluating noninferiority, superiority, and cost-effectiveness using different methodologies (Table 6).^9,15,19-24

This study’s efficacy outcomes, particularly the high DFS rate, are consistent with the findings from these landmark trials, suggesting that the SBRT regimen used at KCVAMC is effective in achieving early disease control despite 17.2% of patients having high-risk disease. The GU toxicity observed in this study, with a 28.2% rate of grade II or higher events, is also comparable with the 26.9% reported in the 5-fraction SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, which had a longer median follow-up of 74 months.¹⁵ It is important to note that a portion of these grade II events occurred in patients who were already on a blockers for pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms before starting radiotherapy, which may inflate the observed cumulative acute toxicity score.

A critical comparison is how SBRT toxicity aligns with moderate hypofractionation (eg, 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 70 Gy in 28 fractions as reported by others).^4,6 Our observed grade III and higher GU toxicity rate (1.7%) and grade III and higher GI toxicity rate (0%) are highly favorable when compared with historical moderate hypofractionation data, which typically report grade III GU toxicity in the range of 2% to 3% and grade III GI toxicity around 1% to 2%. This suggests that despite the higher dose per fraction, SBRT does not necessarily lead to increased severe acute toxicity, potentially offering a superior therapeutic ratio for GI and GU sparing.

However, the occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula in 1 patient (0.6%)—who received the 40 Gy dose—was a serious complication that warrants careful consideration. This rare, but severe, complication in the higher dose cohort underscores the potential for increased organ-at-risk toxicity, particularly in the absence of a hydrogel rectal spacer, which is designed to mitigate high-dose rectal exposure. While the overall rate of significant GU toxicity remains low, this event highlights the potential risks associated with SBRT. Hydrogel rectal spacers are designed to increase the distance between the prostate and the rectum, which can reduce the rectal radiation dose and potentially mitigate the risk of such fistulas. The low rate of grade II or worse GI toxicity (3.4%) in our study is noteworthy, especially considering that hydrogel spacers were not routinely used. This finding aligns with the 2.5% GI toxicity rate reported in the SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, suggesting that careful treatment planning and delivery techniques, such as VMAT-IMRT and daily CBCT for IGRT, may contribute to minimizing GI toxicity even without the use of rectal spacers.¹⁵ The exclusive use of 3-dimensional CBCT for IGRT in our study, without the use of fiducial markers, suggests that accurate target localization can be achieved with this approach, contributing to the observed efficacy and reduced toxicity.

Strengths and Limitations

This study’s retrospective, single-center design may have introduced selection bias. The median follow-up of 45 months, while substantial, is still relatively short for assessing very late toxicities and long-term oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer, which is known for late recurrences. Additionally, the lack of a direct comparison group within KCVAMC limits the ability to definitively attribute the observed outcomes solely to SBRT treatment. However, the strengths of this study include the inclusion of a consecutive series of veteran patients with localized prostate cancer across all risk categories, providing a real-world perspective on SBRT outcomes in a diverse patient population. Furthermore, the detailed assessment of efficacy and toxicity via standardized RTOG criteria enhances the comparability of our findings with those of other published prospective studies, despite the retrospective nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution retrospective analysis revealed that short-term SBRT (36.25 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions), with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and a median follow-up of 45 months, for localized prostate cancer, including patients at HR, is associated with promising early efficacy and acceptable toxicity, even in the absence of routine fiducial or hydrogel spacer use. The favorable actuarial 5-year DFS and OS rates, coupled with a manageable toxicity profile, suggest that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings and fully characterize the long-term efficacy and toxicity of this SBRT regimen. Nevertheless, the results contribute to the growing body of evidence suggesting that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in US males, with an estimated 313,780 new cases and 35,770 deaths in 2025.¹ Several treatment options are available for localized prostate cancer that have similar outcomes, including active surveillance for low-risk cancers, surgery, or radiotherapy.^2,3 Conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) with 40 to 45 fractions over 8 to 9 weeks has been used for decades. Over the past 2 decades, moderate hypofractionation schedules with 2.4 to 3.4 Gy per fraction over 20 to 28 fractions have become standard, as many noninferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) such as CHHiP (UK),⁴ PROFIT (Canada and Europe),⁵ NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 (US),⁶ HYPRO (Netherlands),^7,8 and HYPO-RT-PC (Sweden and Denmark),⁹ have shown the noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with CFRT. Notably, most of these noninferiority studies primarily included patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, except for the HYPO-RT-PC trial,⁹ which also included patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

These noninferiority studies, along with technological advances in radiotherapy, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), paved the path to ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) that is delivered in 5 fractions of ≥ 6 Gy. This high dose per fraction may have a radiobiologic advantage over conventional fractionation. The relatively low a/ß ratio of prostate cancer, estimated to be between 1 and 2, suggests that tumor cells may be particularly sensitive to the high doses per fraction delivered in SBRT.^10-13 Compared with CFRT, SBRT-induced tumor cell death may also be mediated through different pathways; this pathway appears to be generated in a dose-dependent manner, particularly with doses > 8 Gy per fraction.^14,15 Additionally, the higher a/ß ratio for the surrounding organs at risk, such as the bladder and rectum, theoretically allows for an improved therapeutic ratio window that maximizes tumor control while minimizing damage to healthy tissues.

A substantial body of evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses supports the use of SBRT for localized prostate cancer. HYPO-RT-PC, a significant phase 3 noninferiority study, enrolled 1200 patients with intermediate (89%) and high-risk (11%) prostate cancer randomized between 2 arms, including CFRT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions and SBRT to 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, treated 3 days weekly. After a median follow-up of 60 months, the estimated 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 84% in both groups.⁹ This trial was notable because it was the first randomized study to demonstrate that SBRT was noninferior to CFRT in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. Another pivotal phase 3 trial, the PACE-B study, enrolled 874 patients to compare SBRT (36.25 Gy to the prostate gland, with a secondary dose of 40 Gy to the gross tumor volume where applicable, in 5 fractions) with CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) (62 Gy in 20 fractions) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. With a 74-month median follow-up, the study reported 5-year biochemical free rates of 94.6% for CFRT and 95.8% for SBRT, confirming the noninferiority of SBRT to CFRT.¹⁵

SBRT offers short, effective, and convenient treatment to many patients with localized prostate cancer. While previous guidelines were more restrictive, the March 2026 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines now list SBRT as a preferred treatment modality for high-risk prostate cancer.¹⁶

Given the growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of SBRT, we implemented an SBRT program in 2014 at a tertiary care center for veterans. This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the early efficacy and toxicity of SBRT in patients with localized prostate cancer treated at our institution, including patients across all risk stratifications.

METHODS

We identified 242 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent SBRT treatment between November 2014 and October 2024 at Overland Park Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Clinic. For the final analysis, 46 patients with < 2 years of follow-up and 22 patients who died from causes other than prostate cancer were excluded, resulting in a cohort of 174 patients with ≥ 24-month follow-up.

Treatment

Patients eligible for staging underwent imaging according to NCCN guidelines, including computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, bone scintigraphy, or, in recent years, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography, primarily used for unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) and high-risk (HR) cancers. Patients with a negative staging work-up for nodal or skeletal disease were included. Prior to planning the CT simulation, patients were given bowel preparation instructions, including a low-fiber and low-gas-producing diet, simethicone, and enemas, the night before and morning of the simulation. Patients were instructed to arrive with a comfortably full bladder, having not voided for 2 to 3 hours prior to the procedure. At Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (KCVAMC), SBRT treatment was generally restricted to patients with a baseline American Urological Association symptom score of 15 to 20 out of 35 and a prostate gland size < 80 mL to minimize the risk of acute urinary toxicity. We did not use intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast agents for planning CT simulation.

Patients were placed in a supine position, and a vacuum bag was used for immobilization. Following the CT simulation, the images were transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The clinical target volume (CTV) encompassed the prostate and the proximal 1.0 cm of the seminal vesicles for Gleason score (GS) 1 to 2, and the entire seminal vesicle was included for GS 3 to 5, which is consistent with KCVAMC practice and established safety protocols. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by uniformly expanding the CTV by 5 to 7 mm, except for the posterior margin, which was limited to 3 to 5 mm. When elective nodal radiotherapy was planned for HR prostate cancer, the pelvic field for CT simulation started at the L-2 upper border, with the lower border extending to the lesser trochanter. The pelvic nodes were delineated per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines.¹⁷ The CTV nodes (CTVn), including common iliac, external and internal iliac nodes, obturator, and presacral nodes, were created by uniformly expanding the CTVn by 2 to 3 mm. Slice-by-slice corrections were made to avoid bowel overlap in these patients.

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a duration of 6 to 24 months was prescribed for patients with UIR or HR prostate cancer per NCCN guidelines.¹⁶ The prescribed dose to the PTV was 36.25 to 40 Gy (40 Gy was mostly used as a boost to the dominant lesion) in 5 fractions, with each fraction ranging from 7.25 to 8 Gy. For elective nodal radiotherapy in patients at HR, the prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients were planned for VMAT, which aims to deliver ≥ 95% of the prescription dose to 95% of the PTV. Once the physician approved the treatment plan and physics quality assessment was completed, treatments commenced on an every-other-day schedule. Patients received the same bowel preparation instructions for each treatment as for the planning CT simulation. Daily treatment accuracy was confirmed via daily 3-dimensional cone-beam CT (CBCT) for IGRT. No fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers were used.

Follow-up Schedule and Toxicity Assessment

Follow-up assessments were conducted 4 to 6 weeks after radiation therapy and then repeated every 6 months for 2 to 5 years, and annually thereafter. At each follow-up visit, patients were evaluated for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, according to RTOG toxicity criteria. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were monitored; in patients receiving ADT, testosterone levels were also checked.

Statistical Analysis

Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition (nadir PSA + 2 ng/mL). Differences between dose cohorts were assessed using the log-rank test for survival outcomes and X² testing for categorical variables. GU and GI toxicities were summarized as cumulative incidences of RTOG grade ≥ II events. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the retrospective review. Patients had a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 24-111) (Figure). The median age at treatment was 74 years (range, 51-88), and the median pretreatment PSA level was 11.9 ng/mL (range, 0.6-69.5). Twenty-six patients (14.9%) had a GS 1, 77 (44.3%) had GS 2, 41 (23.6%) had GS 3, 18 (10.3%) had GS 4, and 12 (6.9%) had GS 5. Fifty-one patients (29.3%) received elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy, and 93 patients (53.4%) received ADT (Table 1).

At 24 months follow-up, 6 patients (3.4%) had biochemical failures. One patient died from metastatic prostate cancer, and 5 patients are living with biochemical failure (Table 2). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 99.4%, and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 96.6%. We performed a subanalysis comparing outcomes of the 36.25 Gy vs 40 Gy SBRT cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS, OS, or the cumulative incidence of grade II/III toxicity between patients treated with 40 Gy vs 36.25 Gy. Outcomes stratified by NCCN risk groups (low, intermediate, high/very high) are detailed in Table 3. As expected, DFS was slightly lower in the high-risk group, but overall disease control remained high across all stratifications.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II and higher GU toxicity was 28.2% (Table 4). This included 46 patients (26.4%) with grade II GU toxicity and 2 patients (1.2%) who developed grade III GU complications (1 requiring self-catheterization and another a suprapubic catheter for urinary retention). One patient (0.6%) treated with a 40 Gy dose regimen experienced a grade IV GU complication in the form of a rectovesical fistula necessitating surgical intervention.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II or higher GI toxicity was 3.4%, and no grade III or IV gastrointestinal toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. Importantly, intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast were not routinely used in this cohort of patients.

The high rates of actuarial 5-year DFS and OS observed suggest a favorable initial response to the SBRT regimen employed at KCVAMC. However, given the potential for late recurrence in patients with prostate cancer, longer follow-up is essential to determine the durability of these outcomes. The observed GU toxicity rate of 28.2% for grade II and higher events warrants careful consideration and compares with other published data on SBRT for prostate cancer.¹⁵ The occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula, although rare, is a notable adverse event that warrants discussion in the context of the treatment approach. The low incidence of grade II or higher GI toxicity is an encouraging finding, particularly given that hydrogel rectal spacers are not routinely used to minimize rectal exposure.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of SBRT for patients with localized prostate cancer treated at KCVAMC and to compare these results with those reported in the literature. Our findings demonstrate promising intermediate-term efficacy, with an estimated 5-year DFS of 96.6% and OS of 99.4% at a median follow-up of 45 months. Furthermore, the observed toxicity profile appears acceptable, with a cumulative grade II and higher GU toxicity rate of 28.2% and a grade II or higher GI toxicity rate of 3.4%. Notably, these outcomes were achieved without the routine use of intraprostatic fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers.

Two pivotal randomized phase 3 trials have established the noninferiority of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) with SBRT over conventional fractionation. The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared SBRT (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) with conventional fractionation (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in intermediate- and high-risk patients with prostate cancer and reported a 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival of 84% in both arms.⁹ The PACE-B trial, which included patients at low- and intermediate-risk, compared SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) with conventional or moderate HFRT and reported a 5-year biochemical control rate of 95.8% in the SBRT arm and 94.6% in the control arm.¹⁵

A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 7 phase 3 studies involving 6795 patients compared different radiotherapy regimens, namely, UHRT, HFRT, and CFRT, and reported that after 5 years, the DFS rates were 85.1% for CFRT, 86% for HFRT, and 85% for UHRT, with no significant difference in toxicity among the 3 different treatment approaches.¹⁸ This suggests that shorter, more intense radiotherapy schedules (UHRT and HFRT) may be as effective and safe as traditional, longer courses of radiation.

There are multiple published nonrandomized prospective trials in which thousands of patients with extreme hypofractionation have been treated with different doses, fractions, and techniques. While heterogeneity and limited long-term follow-up in the existing evidence are acknowledged, these data suggest that prostate SBRT provides appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities, supporting its ongoing global use and justifying further prospective investigations. Comparative data are shown in Table 5. Several ongoing studies are evaluating noninferiority, superiority, and cost-effectiveness using different methodologies (Table 6).^9,15,19-24

This study’s efficacy outcomes, particularly the high DFS rate, are consistent with the findings from these landmark trials, suggesting that the SBRT regimen used at KCVAMC is effective in achieving early disease control despite 17.2% of patients having high-risk disease. The GU toxicity observed in this study, with a 28.2% rate of grade II or higher events, is also comparable with the 26.9% reported in the 5-fraction SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, which had a longer median follow-up of 74 months.¹⁵ It is important to note that a portion of these grade II events occurred in patients who were already on a blockers for pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms before starting radiotherapy, which may inflate the observed cumulative acute toxicity score.

A critical comparison is how SBRT toxicity aligns with moderate hypofractionation (eg, 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 70 Gy in 28 fractions as reported by others).^4,6 Our observed grade III and higher GU toxicity rate (1.7%) and grade III and higher GI toxicity rate (0%) are highly favorable when compared with historical moderate hypofractionation data, which typically report grade III GU toxicity in the range of 2% to 3% and grade III GI toxicity around 1% to 2%. This suggests that despite the higher dose per fraction, SBRT does not necessarily lead to increased severe acute toxicity, potentially offering a superior therapeutic ratio for GI and GU sparing.

However, the occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula in 1 patient (0.6%)—who received the 40 Gy dose—was a serious complication that warrants careful consideration. This rare, but severe, complication in the higher dose cohort underscores the potential for increased organ-at-risk toxicity, particularly in the absence of a hydrogel rectal spacer, which is designed to mitigate high-dose rectal exposure. While the overall rate of significant GU toxicity remains low, this event highlights the potential risks associated with SBRT. Hydrogel rectal spacers are designed to increase the distance between the prostate and the rectum, which can reduce the rectal radiation dose and potentially mitigate the risk of such fistulas. The low rate of grade II or worse GI toxicity (3.4%) in our study is noteworthy, especially considering that hydrogel spacers were not routinely used. This finding aligns with the 2.5% GI toxicity rate reported in the SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, suggesting that careful treatment planning and delivery techniques, such as VMAT-IMRT and daily CBCT for IGRT, may contribute to minimizing GI toxicity even without the use of rectal spacers.¹⁵ The exclusive use of 3-dimensional CBCT for IGRT in our study, without the use of fiducial markers, suggests that accurate target localization can be achieved with this approach, contributing to the observed efficacy and reduced toxicity.

Strengths and Limitations

This study’s retrospective, single-center design may have introduced selection bias. The median follow-up of 45 months, while substantial, is still relatively short for assessing very late toxicities and long-term oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer, which is known for late recurrences. Additionally, the lack of a direct comparison group within KCVAMC limits the ability to definitively attribute the observed outcomes solely to SBRT treatment. However, the strengths of this study include the inclusion of a consecutive series of veteran patients with localized prostate cancer across all risk categories, providing a real-world perspective on SBRT outcomes in a diverse patient population. Furthermore, the detailed assessment of efficacy and toxicity via standardized RTOG criteria enhances the comparability of our findings with those of other published prospective studies, despite the retrospective nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution retrospective analysis revealed that short-term SBRT (36.25 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions), with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and a median follow-up of 45 months, for localized prostate cancer, including patients at HR, is associated with promising early efficacy and acceptable toxicity, even in the absence of routine fiducial or hydrogel spacer use. The favorable actuarial 5-year DFS and OS rates, coupled with a manageable toxicity profile, suggest that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings and fully characterize the long-term efficacy and toxicity of this SBRT regimen. Nevertheless, the results contribute to the growing body of evidence suggesting that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in US males, with an estimated 313,780 new cases and 35,770 deaths in 2025.¹ Several treatment options are available for localized prostate cancer that have similar outcomes, including active surveillance for low-risk cancers, surgery, or radiotherapy.^2,3 Conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) with 40 to 45 fractions over 8 to 9 weeks has been used for decades. Over the past 2 decades, moderate hypofractionation schedules with 2.4 to 3.4 Gy per fraction over 20 to 28 fractions have become standard, as many noninferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) such as CHHiP (UK),⁴ PROFIT (Canada and Europe),⁵ NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 (US),⁶ HYPRO (Netherlands),^7,8 and HYPO-RT-PC (Sweden and Denmark),⁹ have shown the noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with CFRT. Notably, most of these noninferiority studies primarily included patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, except for the HYPO-RT-PC trial,⁹ which also included patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

These noninferiority studies, along with technological advances in radiotherapy, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), paved the path to ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) that is delivered in 5 fractions of ≥ 6 Gy. This high dose per fraction may have a radiobiologic advantage over conventional fractionation. The relatively low a/ß ratio of prostate cancer, estimated to be between 1 and 2, suggests that tumor cells may be particularly sensitive to the high doses per fraction delivered in SBRT.^10-13 Compared with CFRT, SBRT-induced tumor cell death may also be mediated through different pathways; this pathway appears to be generated in a dose-dependent manner, particularly with doses > 8 Gy per fraction.^14,15 Additionally, the higher a/ß ratio for the surrounding organs at risk, such as the bladder and rectum, theoretically allows for an improved therapeutic ratio window that maximizes tumor control while minimizing damage to healthy tissues.

A substantial body of evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses supports the use of SBRT for localized prostate cancer. HYPO-RT-PC, a significant phase 3 noninferiority study, enrolled 1200 patients with intermediate (89%) and high-risk (11%) prostate cancer randomized between 2 arms, including CFRT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions and SBRT to 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, treated 3 days weekly. After a median follow-up of 60 months, the estimated 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 84% in both groups.⁹ This trial was notable because it was the first randomized study to demonstrate that SBRT was noninferior to CFRT in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. Another pivotal phase 3 trial, the PACE-B study, enrolled 874 patients to compare SBRT (36.25 Gy to the prostate gland, with a secondary dose of 40 Gy to the gross tumor volume where applicable, in 5 fractions) with CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) (62 Gy in 20 fractions) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. With a 74-month median follow-up, the study reported 5-year biochemical free rates of 94.6% for CFRT and 95.8% for SBRT, confirming the noninferiority of SBRT to CFRT.¹⁵

SBRT offers short, effective, and convenient treatment to many patients with localized prostate cancer. While previous guidelines were more restrictive, the March 2026 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines now list SBRT as a preferred treatment modality for high-risk prostate cancer.¹⁶

Given the growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of SBRT, we implemented an SBRT program in 2014 at a tertiary care center for veterans. This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the early efficacy and toxicity of SBRT in patients with localized prostate cancer treated at our institution, including patients across all risk stratifications.

METHODS

We identified 242 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent SBRT treatment between November 2014 and October 2024 at Overland Park Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Clinic. For the final analysis, 46 patients with < 2 years of follow-up and 22 patients who died from causes other than prostate cancer were excluded, resulting in a cohort of 174 patients with ≥ 24-month follow-up.

Treatment

Patients eligible for staging underwent imaging according to NCCN guidelines, including computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, bone scintigraphy, or, in recent years, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography, primarily used for unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) and high-risk (HR) cancers. Patients with a negative staging work-up for nodal or skeletal disease were included. Prior to planning the CT simulation, patients were given bowel preparation instructions, including a low-fiber and low-gas-producing diet, simethicone, and enemas, the night before and morning of the simulation. Patients were instructed to arrive with a comfortably full bladder, having not voided for 2 to 3 hours prior to the procedure. At Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (KCVAMC), SBRT treatment was generally restricted to patients with a baseline American Urological Association symptom score of 15 to 20 out of 35 and a prostate gland size < 80 mL to minimize the risk of acute urinary toxicity. We did not use intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast agents for planning CT simulation.

Patients were placed in a supine position, and a vacuum bag was used for immobilization. Following the CT simulation, the images were transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The clinical target volume (CTV) encompassed the prostate and the proximal 1.0 cm of the seminal vesicles for Gleason score (GS) 1 to 2, and the entire seminal vesicle was included for GS 3 to 5, which is consistent with KCVAMC practice and established safety protocols. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by uniformly expanding the CTV by 5 to 7 mm, except for the posterior margin, which was limited to 3 to 5 mm. When elective nodal radiotherapy was planned for HR prostate cancer, the pelvic field for CT simulation started at the L-2 upper border, with the lower border extending to the lesser trochanter. The pelvic nodes were delineated per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines.¹⁷ The CTV nodes (CTVn), including common iliac, external and internal iliac nodes, obturator, and presacral nodes, were created by uniformly expanding the CTVn by 2 to 3 mm. Slice-by-slice corrections were made to avoid bowel overlap in these patients.

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a duration of 6 to 24 months was prescribed for patients with UIR or HR prostate cancer per NCCN guidelines.¹⁶ The prescribed dose to the PTV was 36.25 to 40 Gy (40 Gy was mostly used as a boost to the dominant lesion) in 5 fractions, with each fraction ranging from 7.25 to 8 Gy. For elective nodal radiotherapy in patients at HR, the prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients were planned for VMAT, which aims to deliver ≥ 95% of the prescription dose to 95% of the PTV. Once the physician approved the treatment plan and physics quality assessment was completed, treatments commenced on an every-other-day schedule. Patients received the same bowel preparation instructions for each treatment as for the planning CT simulation. Daily treatment accuracy was confirmed via daily 3-dimensional cone-beam CT (CBCT) for IGRT. No fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers were used.

Follow-up Schedule and Toxicity Assessment

Follow-up assessments were conducted 4 to 6 weeks after radiation therapy and then repeated every 6 months for 2 to 5 years, and annually thereafter. At each follow-up visit, patients were evaluated for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, according to RTOG toxicity criteria. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were monitored; in patients receiving ADT, testosterone levels were also checked.

Statistical Analysis

Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition (nadir PSA + 2 ng/mL). Differences between dose cohorts were assessed using the log-rank test for survival outcomes and X² testing for categorical variables. GU and GI toxicities were summarized as cumulative incidences of RTOG grade ≥ II events. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the retrospective review. Patients had a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 24-111) (Figure). The median age at treatment was 74 years (range, 51-88), and the median pretreatment PSA level was 11.9 ng/mL (range, 0.6-69.5). Twenty-six patients (14.9%) had a GS 1, 77 (44.3%) had GS 2, 41 (23.6%) had GS 3, 18 (10.3%) had GS 4, and 12 (6.9%) had GS 5. Fifty-one patients (29.3%) received elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy, and 93 patients (53.4%) received ADT (Table 1).

At 24 months follow-up, 6 patients (3.4%) had biochemical failures. One patient died from metastatic prostate cancer, and 5 patients are living with biochemical failure (Table 2). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 99.4%, and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 96.6%. We performed a subanalysis comparing outcomes of the 36.25 Gy vs 40 Gy SBRT cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS, OS, or the cumulative incidence of grade II/III toxicity between patients treated with 40 Gy vs 36.25 Gy. Outcomes stratified by NCCN risk groups (low, intermediate, high/very high) are detailed in Table 3. As expected, DFS was slightly lower in the high-risk group, but overall disease control remained high across all stratifications.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II and higher GU toxicity was 28.2% (Table 4). This included 46 patients (26.4%) with grade II GU toxicity and 2 patients (1.2%) who developed grade III GU complications (1 requiring self-catheterization and another a suprapubic catheter for urinary retention). One patient (0.6%) treated with a 40 Gy dose regimen experienced a grade IV GU complication in the form of a rectovesical fistula necessitating surgical intervention.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II or higher GI toxicity was 3.4%, and no grade III or IV gastrointestinal toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. Importantly, intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast were not routinely used in this cohort of patients.

The high rates of actuarial 5-year DFS and OS observed suggest a favorable initial response to the SBRT regimen employed at KCVAMC. However, given the potential for late recurrence in patients with prostate cancer, longer follow-up is essential to determine the durability of these outcomes. The observed GU toxicity rate of 28.2% for grade II and higher events warrants careful consideration and compares with other published data on SBRT for prostate cancer.¹⁵ The occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula, although rare, is a notable adverse event that warrants discussion in the context of the treatment approach. The low incidence of grade II or higher GI toxicity is an encouraging finding, particularly given that hydrogel rectal spacers are not routinely used to minimize rectal exposure.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of SBRT for patients with localized prostate cancer treated at KCVAMC and to compare these results with those reported in the literature. Our findings demonstrate promising intermediate-term efficacy, with an estimated 5-year DFS of 96.6% and OS of 99.4% at a median follow-up of 45 months. Furthermore, the observed toxicity profile appears acceptable, with a cumulative grade II and higher GU toxicity rate of 28.2% and a grade II or higher GI toxicity rate of 3.4%. Notably, these outcomes were achieved without the routine use of intraprostatic fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers.

Two pivotal randomized phase 3 trials have established the noninferiority of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) with SBRT over conventional fractionation. The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared SBRT (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) with conventional fractionation (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in intermediate- and high-risk patients with prostate cancer and reported a 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival of 84% in both arms.⁹ The PACE-B trial, which included patients at low- and intermediate-risk, compared SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) with conventional or moderate HFRT and reported a 5-year biochemical control rate of 95.8% in the SBRT arm and 94.6% in the control arm.¹⁵

A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 7 phase 3 studies involving 6795 patients compared different radiotherapy regimens, namely, UHRT, HFRT, and CFRT, and reported that after 5 years, the DFS rates were 85.1% for CFRT, 86% for HFRT, and 85% for UHRT, with no significant difference in toxicity among the 3 different treatment approaches.¹⁸ This suggests that shorter, more intense radiotherapy schedules (UHRT and HFRT) may be as effective and safe as traditional, longer courses of radiation.

There are multiple published nonrandomized prospective trials in which thousands of patients with extreme hypofractionation have been treated with different doses, fractions, and techniques. While heterogeneity and limited long-term follow-up in the existing evidence are acknowledged, these data suggest that prostate SBRT provides appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities, supporting its ongoing global use and justifying further prospective investigations. Comparative data are shown in Table 5. Several ongoing studies are evaluating noninferiority, superiority, and cost-effectiveness using different methodologies (Table 6).^9,15,19-24

This study’s efficacy outcomes, particularly the high DFS rate, are consistent with the findings from these landmark trials, suggesting that the SBRT regimen used at KCVAMC is effective in achieving early disease control despite 17.2% of patients having high-risk disease. The GU toxicity observed in this study, with a 28.2% rate of grade II or higher events, is also comparable with the 26.9% reported in the 5-fraction SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, which had a longer median follow-up of 74 months.¹⁵ It is important to note that a portion of these grade II events occurred in patients who were already on a blockers for pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms before starting radiotherapy, which may inflate the observed cumulative acute toxicity score.

A critical comparison is how SBRT toxicity aligns with moderate hypofractionation (eg, 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 70 Gy in 28 fractions as reported by others).^4,6 Our observed grade III and higher GU toxicity rate (1.7%) and grade III and higher GI toxicity rate (0%) are highly favorable when compared with historical moderate hypofractionation data, which typically report grade III GU toxicity in the range of 2% to 3% and grade III GI toxicity around 1% to 2%. This suggests that despite the higher dose per fraction, SBRT does not necessarily lead to increased severe acute toxicity, potentially offering a superior therapeutic ratio for GI and GU sparing.

However, the occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula in 1 patient (0.6%)—who received the 40 Gy dose—was a serious complication that warrants careful consideration. This rare, but severe, complication in the higher dose cohort underscores the potential for increased organ-at-risk toxicity, particularly in the absence of a hydrogel rectal spacer, which is designed to mitigate high-dose rectal exposure. While the overall rate of significant GU toxicity remains low, this event highlights the potential risks associated with SBRT. Hydrogel rectal spacers are designed to increase the distance between the prostate and the rectum, which can reduce the rectal radiation dose and potentially mitigate the risk of such fistulas. The low rate of grade II or worse GI toxicity (3.4%) in our study is noteworthy, especially considering that hydrogel spacers were not routinely used. This finding aligns with the 2.5% GI toxicity rate reported in the SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, suggesting that careful treatment planning and delivery techniques, such as VMAT-IMRT and daily CBCT for IGRT, may contribute to minimizing GI toxicity even without the use of rectal spacers.¹⁵ The exclusive use of 3-dimensional CBCT for IGRT in our study, without the use of fiducial markers, suggests that accurate target localization can be achieved with this approach, contributing to the observed efficacy and reduced toxicity.

Strengths and Limitations

This study’s retrospective, single-center design may have introduced selection bias. The median follow-up of 45 months, while substantial, is still relatively short for assessing very late toxicities and long-term oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer, which is known for late recurrences. Additionally, the lack of a direct comparison group within KCVAMC limits the ability to definitively attribute the observed outcomes solely to SBRT treatment. However, the strengths of this study include the inclusion of a consecutive series of veteran patients with localized prostate cancer across all risk categories, providing a real-world perspective on SBRT outcomes in a diverse patient population. Furthermore, the detailed assessment of efficacy and toxicity via standardized RTOG criteria enhances the comparability of our findings with those of other published prospective studies, despite the retrospective nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution retrospective analysis revealed that short-term SBRT (36.25 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions), with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and a median follow-up of 45 months, for localized prostate cancer, including patients at HR, is associated with promising early efficacy and acceptable toxicity, even in the absence of routine fiducial or hydrogel spacer use. The favorable actuarial 5-year DFS and OS rates, coupled with a manageable toxicity profile, suggest that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings and fully characterize the long-term efficacy and toxicity of this SBRT regimen. Nevertheless, the results contribute to the growing body of evidence suggesting that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer.