Is it necessary to perform week three dosimetric analysis in low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer when day 0 dosimetry is done? A quality assurance assessment

Acute and late side-effects after low dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer; incidence, management and technical considerations

PURPOSE

To review common reported side effects and complications after primary LDR-BT (monotherapy) and discuss some of the technical aspects that could impact the treatment outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A literature search was undertaken using medical subject headings (MeSH) complemented by the authors' personal and institutional expertise.

RESULTS

The reported incidence of acute and late grade 2 or above urinary, bowel and sexual side effects is very variable across the literature. The learning curve and the implant quality have a clear impact on the toxicity outcomes. Being aware of some of the technical challenges encountered during the procedure and ways to mitigate them could decrease the incidence of side effects. Careful planning of seed placement and seed deposition allow sparing of the organs at risk and a lower incidence of urinary and gastro-intestinal toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose-rate brachytherapy remains a standard monotherapy treatment in the setting of favorable-risk prostate cancer. High disease control and low long-term toxicities are achievable in expert hands with a good technique.

Correlation between real-time intraoperative and postoperative dosimetry and its implications on intraoperative planning

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to study the correlation between intraoperative and postimplant dosimetry. We investigated the correlation between prostate (V₁₅₀) and urethra (D₃₀, D₅) dose limits, and whether it is possible to increase prostate D₉₀ and V₁₀₀ in intraoperative planning without violating postimplant urethra and rectum dose limits.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Seventy-nine patients who underwent real-time ultrasound-guided prostate implants using intraoperative planning from 2013 to 2017 were analyzed. Forty-one of the 79 implants were ¹²⁵I as monotherapy and the remainder was ¹⁰³Pd as boost to external beam radiation therapy or external beam radiation therapy plus androgen deprivation therapy. Prescriptions followed the guidelines of AAPM TG-137. The urethra was catheterized during intraoperative implantation and postimplant imaging to facilitate the urethra identification. T2-cubed MRI and CT were acquired on the same day and about 1 month after the low-dose-rate procedure, and MRI was later fused with the CT scan for accurate delineation of the prostate and postimplant dosimetry evaluation. An institutionally based peer-review process and document procedure were established based on national recommendations. Correlation of dose parameters: D₉₀, V₁₅₀, V₁₀₀ of prostate, D₃₀, D₅ of urethra, and V₁₀₀ of rectum between intraoperative and postimplant plans were evaluated.

RESULTS

D₉₀ and V₁₀₀ declined for all implants between intraoperative and postimplant dosimetry. On average, D₉₀ declined by 17.5% and 21.7% for ¹²⁵I and ¹⁰³Pb implants, respectively. V₁₀₀ declined for all implants between intraoperative and postimplant dosimetry but less pronounced. Prostate V₁₅₀ and urethra D₃₀ and D₅ also showed different tendency of decline. Of the 79 implants, 60 did not meet the postimplant dosimetry target for prostate (V₁₅₀ ≤ 50%), and 46 of the 60 implants met the optimal dosimetry targets for both D₃₀ (<125%) and D₅ (<150%), and the other 14 of the 60 implants failed to meet either the D₃₀ or the D₅ limits. All the implants met the postimplant target dose for rectum: V₁₀₀≤ 1.3 cc.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative implant dosimetry could not accurately predict postimplant dosimetry; however, to avoid underdosage of prostate, intraoperative D₉₀ should be close to 120% of prescribed dose and V₁₀₀ needs to be close to 100% of prescribed dose. Prostate V₁₅₀> 50% does not necessarily indicate the violation of urethra D₃₀ and D₅ dose limits. For most of the implants, target intraoperative D₉₀ and V₁₀₀ could be raised without violating urethra D₃₀ and D₅ limits recommended by American Brachytherapy Society in postimplant evaluation.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

Cone-beam CT-based adaptive planning improves permanent prostate brachytherapy dosimetry: An analysis of 1266 patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate adaptive planning for permanent prostate brachytherapy and to identify the prostate regions that needed adaptation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

After the implantation of stranded seeds, using real-time intraoperative planning, a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-scan was obtained and contoured. The positions of seeds were determined on a C-arm cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-scan. The CBCT-scan was registered to the TRUS-scan using fiducial gold markers. If dose coverage on the combined image-dataset was inadequate, an intraoperative adaptation was performed by placing remedial seeds. CBCT-based intraoperative dosimetry was analyzed for the prostate (D90, V100, and V150) and the urethra (D30). The effects of the adaptive dosimetry procedure for Day 30 were separately assessed.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1266 patients. In 17.4% of the procedures, an adaptation was performed. Without the dose contribution of the adaptation Day 30 V100 would be < 95% for half of this group. On Day 0, the increase due to the adaptation was 11.8 ± 7.2% (1SD) for D90 and 9.0 ± 6.4% for V100. On Day 30, we observed an increase in D90 of 12.3 ± 6.0% and in V100 of 4.2 ± 4.3%. For the total group, a D90 of 119.6 ± 9.1% and V100 of 97.7 ± 2.5% was achieved. Most remedial seeds were placed anteriorly near the base of the prostate.

CONCLUSION

CBCT-based adaptive planning enables identification of implants needing adaptation and improves prostate dose coverage. Adaptations were predominantly performed near the anterior base of the prostate.

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.