Impact of supplemental external beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy

A comparison of outcomes for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with low dose rate and high dose rate brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy

•

Superior biochemical progression free survival for LDR in combination with EBRT.

•

On multivariable analysis, HDR and EBRT and Gleason ≥8 predicted for progression.

•

Low cumulative incidence of ≥grade 3 GU and GI toxicities.

Introduction

There is evidence to support use of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in combination with both low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR–EBRT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR–EBRT) to treat intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.

Methods

Men with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated using LDR–EBRT (treated between 1996 and 2007) and HDR–EBRT (treated between 2007 and 2012) were identified from an institutional database. Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between patient, disease and treatment factors with biochemical progression free survival (bPFS).

Results

116 men were treated with LDR-EBRT and 171 were treated with HDR–EBRT. At 5 years, bPFS was estimated to be 90.5% for the LDR–EBRT cohort and 77.6% for the HDR–EBRT cohort. On multivariable analysis, patients treated with HDR–EBRT were more than twice as likely to experience biochemical progression compared with LDR–EBRT (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.12–4.07). Patients with Gleason ≥8 disease were more than five times more likely to experience biochemical progression compared with Gleason 6 disease (HR 5.47, 95% CI 1.26–23.64). Cumulative incidence of ≥grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities for the LDR–EBRT and HDR–EBRT cohorts were 8% versus 4% and 5% versus 1% respectively, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

LDR–EBRT may provide more effective PSA control at 5 years compared with HDR–EBRT. Direct comparison of these treatments through randomised trials are recommended to investigate this hypothesis further.

Low dose rate prostate brachytherapy

Low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy is an evidence based radiation technique with excellent oncologic outcomes. By utilizing direct image guidance for radioactive source placement, LDR brachytherapy provides superior radiation dose escalation and conformality compared to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). With this level of precision, late grade 3 or 4 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity rates are typically between 1% and 4%. Furthermore, when performed as a same day surgical procedure, this technique provides a cost effective and convenient strategy. A large body of literature with robust follow-up has led multiple expert consensus groups to endorse the use of LDR brachytherapy as an appropriate management option for all risk groups of non-metastatic prostate cancer. LDR brachytherapy is often effective when delivered as a monotherapy, although for some patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, optimal outcome are achieved in combination with supplemental EBRT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In addition to reviewing technical aspects and reported clinical outcomes of LDR prostate brachytherapy, this article will focus on the considerations related to appropriate patient selection and other aspects of its use in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Oncological impact of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on permanent iodine-125 seed brachytherapy in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether neoadjuvant hormonal therapy improves oncological outcomes of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with permanent brachytherapy.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and November 2014, 564 patients underwent transperineal ultrasonography-guided permanent iodine-125 seed brachytherapy. We retrospectively analyzed low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The clinical variables were evaluated for influence on biochemical recurrence-free survival, progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 484 patients with low-risk (259 patients) or intermediate-risk disease (225 patients) were evaluated. Of these, 188 received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. With a median follow up of 71 months, the 5-year actuarial biochemical recurrence-free survival rates of patients who did and did not receive neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were 92.9% and 93.6%, respectively (P = 0.2843). When patients were stratified by risk group, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy did not improve biochemical recurrence-free survival outcomes in low- (P = 0.8949) or intermediate-risk (P = 0.1989) patients. The duration or type of hormonal therapy was not significant in predicting biochemical recurrence. In a multivariate analysis, Gleason score, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, clinical T stage, and prostate dosimetry, primary Gleason score and positive core rate were significant predictive factors of biochemical recurrence-free survival, whereas neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was insignificant. Furthermore, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy did not significantly influence progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival or overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with low- or intermediate-risk disease treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy does not improve oncological outcomes. Its use should be restricted to patients who require prostate volume reduction.

The Role of External-Beam Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

Background

The treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer is controversial. Options include radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, cryotherapy, and watchful waiting.

Methods

The author reviews EBRT as treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer, with particular emphasis on the technological advances that have allowed dose escalation and fewer therapy-related side effects.

Results

Technological advances in the last two decades have significantly improved the delivery of EBRT to the prostate. This has resulted in an overall increase in the total dose that can be safely delivered to the prostate, which has led to modest improvements in biochemical outcome. An alternative approach of combining androgen suppression therapy and EBRT has also been successful in improving clinical outcomes. However, establishing the optimal therapy for prostate cancer remains controversial.

Conclusions

Recent progress has led to improvements in clinical outcomes in patients treated with EBRT for prostate cancer. It is hoped that the next decades will bring continued advances in the development of biologicals that will further improve current clinical outcomes.

Cyberknife Radioablation of Prostate Cancer – Preliminary Results for 400 Patients

Objectives: To evaluate the tolerance and effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) applied in the treatment of low and intermediate risk (LR & IR) prostate cancer patients (PCP) and provide an evaluation of the level of risk group impact on treatment results. In addition, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) usage and prostatic specific antigen (PSA) decline after SABR were assessed. Material and Methods: A total of 400 PCP (213 LR and 187 IR, including T2c) were irradiated with a CyberKnife using fd 7.25 Gy to TD 36.25 Gy. At the start of treatment, 60.3% of patients were undergoing ADT and this gradually decreased to 0% after 38 months. Follow-up was for a median of 15.0 months. Patients were monitored on SABR completion and 1, 4, 8 months later and then subsequently every 6 months. GI (Gastro-Intestinal) and GU (Genito-Urinary) acute and late adverse effects, PSA and ADT usage were evaluated. Results: Failure was noted in 9 patients (2.25%) (5 in LR and 4 in IR groups) - 4 relapses and 5 nodal metastases. No G3/4 late adverse effects (EORTC/RTOG) were observed. Some 0.5% of G3 GU and 0.3% of G3 GI acute reactions were noted respectively on the SABR completion day and one month later. The median of PSA declined 1.5 ng/ml during the first month and 0.6 ng/ml during the next three months. No impact of risk groups on treatment results was found. An impact of ADT on PSA decline was only confirmed for time point interactions. Conclusions: SABR for LR and IR PCP is a safe and effective treatment. The inclusion of T2c patients and the low percentage of IR patient failure permit us the assumption that this procedure could be utilized in the treatment of more advanced cases. The results do not allow clear definition of the impact of ADT on radioablation results in LR and IR+ T2c cases.

American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: Use of androgen deprivation therapy with prostate brachytherapy-A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Prostate brachytherapy (PB) has well-documented excellent long-term outcomes in all risk groups. There are significant uncertainties regarding the role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with brachytherapy. The purpose of this report was to review systemically the published literature and summarize present knowledge regarding the impact of ADT on biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase covering the years 1996-2016. Selected were articles with >100 patients, minimum followup 3 years, defined risk stratification, and directly examining the role and impact of ADT on bPFS, CSS, and OS. The studies were grouped to reflect disease risk stratification. We also reviewed the impact of ADT on OS, cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and on-going brachytherapy randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two selected studies (43,303 patients) were included in this review; 7 high-dose rate and 45 low-dose rate; 25 studies were multi-institutional and 27 single institution (retrospective review or prospective data collection) and 2 were RCTs. The studies were heterogeneous in patient population, risk categories, risk factors, followup time, and treatment administered, including ADT administration and duration (median, 3-12 months);71% of the studies reported a lack of benefit, whereas 28% showed improvement in bPFS with addition of ADT to PB. The lack of benefit was seen in low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk (IR) disease and most high-dose rate studies. A bPFS benefit of up to 15% was seen with ADT use in patients with suboptimal dosimetry, those with multiple adverse risk factors (unfavorable IR [uIR]), and most high-risk (HR) studies. Four studies reported very small benefit to CSS (2%). None of the studies showed OS advantage; however, three studies reported an absolute 5-20% OS detriment with ADT. Literature suggests that OS detriment is more likely in older patients or those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Four RCTs with an adequate number of patients and well-defined risk stratification are in progress. One RCT will answer the question regarding the role of ADT with PB in favorable IR patients and the other three RCTs will focus on optimal duration of ADT in the uIR and favorable HR population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with brachytherapy have excellent long-term disease outcomes. Existing evidence shows no benefit of adding ADT to PB in low-risk and favorable IR patients. UIR and HR patients and those with suboptimal dosimetry may have up to 15% improvement in bPFS with addition of 3-12 months of ADT, with uncertain impact on CSS and a potential detriment on OS. To minimize morbidity, one should exercise caution in prescribing ADT together with PB, in particular to older men and those with existing cardiovascular disease. Due to the retrospective nature of this evidence, significant selection, and treatment bias, no definitive conclusions are possible. RCT is urgently needed to define the potential role and optimal duration of ADT in uIR and favorable HR disease.

ACR appropriateness criteria: Permanent source brachytherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To provide updated American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria for transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial permanent source brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The ACR appropriateness criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

RESULTS

Permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) is a treatment option for appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer with low to very high risk disease. PPB monotherapy remains an appropriate and effective curative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer patients demonstrating excellent long-term cancer control and acceptable morbidity. PPB monotherapy can be considered for select intermediate-risk patients with multiparametric MRI useful in evaluation of such patients. High-risk patients treated with PPB should receive supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) along with androgen deprivation. Similarly, patients with involved pelvic lymph nodes may also be considered for such combined treatment but reported long-term outcomes are limited. Computed tomography-based postimplant dosimetry completed within 60 days of PPB is essential for quality assurance. PPB may be considered for treatment of local recurrence after EBRT but is associated with an increased risk of toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Updated appropriateness criteria for patient evaluation, selection, treatment, and postimplant dosimetry are given. These criteria are intended to be advisory only with the final responsibility for patient care residing with the treating clinicians.

An open-source genetic algorithm for determining optimal seed distributions for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

An open source optimizer that generates seed distributions for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy was designed, tested, and validated.

METHODS

The optimizer was a simple genetic algorithm (SGA) that, given a set of prostate and urethra contours, determines the optimal seed distribution in terms of coverage of the prostate with the prescribed dose while avoiding hotspots within the urethra. The algorithm was validated in a retrospective study on 45 previously contoured low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy patients. Dosimetric indices were evaluated to ensure solutions adhered to clinical standards. The SGA performance was further benchmarked by comparing solutions obtained from a commercial optimizer (inverse planning simulated annealing [IPSA]) with the same cohort of 45 patients.

RESULTS

Clinically acceptable target coverage by the prescribed dose (V100) was obtained for both SGA and IPSA, with a mean ± standard deviation of 98 ± 2% and 99.5 ± 0.5%, respectively. For the prostate D90, SGA and IPSA yielded 177 ± 8 Gy and 186 ± 7 Gy, respectively, which were both clinically acceptable. Both algorithms yielded reasonable dose to the rectum, with V100 < 0.3 cc. A reduction in dose to the urethra was seen using SGA. SGA solutions showed a slight prostate volume dependence, with smaller prostates (<25 cc) yielding less desirable, although still clinically viable, dosimetric outcomes. SGA plans used, on average, fewer needles than IPSA (21 vs. 24, respectively), which may lead to a reduction in urinary toxicity and edema that alters post-implant dosimetry.

CONCLUSIONS

An open source SGA was validated that provides a research tool for the brachytherapy community.

Dose-Escalated Robotic SBRT for Stage I-II Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is the precise external delivery of very high-dose radiotherapy to targets in the body, with treatment completed in one to five fractions. SBRT should be an ideal approach for organ-confined prostate cancer because (I) dose-escalation should yield improved rates of cancer control; (II) the unique radiobiology of prostate cancer favors hypofractionation; and (III) the conformal nature of SBRT minimizes high-dose radiation delivery to immediately adjacent organs, potentially reducing complications. This approach is also more convenient for patients, and is cheaper than intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Several external beam platforms are capable of delivering SBRT for early-stage prostate cancer, although most of the mature reported series have employed a robotic non-coplanar platform (i.e., CyberKnife). Several large studies report 5-year biochemical relapse rates which compare favorably to IMRT. Rates of late GU toxicity are similar to those seen with IMRT, and rates of late rectal toxicity may be less than with IMRT and low-dose rate brachytherapy. Patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes appear similar to IMRT in the urinary domain. Bowel QOL may be less adversely affected by SBRT than with other radiation modalities. After 5 years of follow-up, SBRT delivered on a robotic platform is yielding outcomes at least as favorable as IMRT, and may be considered appropriate therapy for stage I–II prostate cancer.

Low-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-grade prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a radiosensitive type of cancer for which radiotherapy is used for both curative and palliative purposes. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy is an internal radiotherapy technique which allows high doses of radiation to be delivered to a tumour at short range and with a high degree of precision. We have conducted a systematic review of the evidence base for this treatment. The method is not established in Norway.

METHOD

This review is based on systematic review articles and publications on treatment, outcomes, adverse effects and health economics considerations found by searching the databases Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase and NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence).

RESULTS

Subsequent to long-term observations of the efficacy, adverse effects and costs presented in 43 selected studies, including one randomised, controlled trial, there is still uncertainty as to which of the three methods low-dose brachytherapy, external radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy is optimal. The reason for this is the methodological differences in patient selection and in endpoints such as biochemical disease-free interval and cause-specific survival. The evidence base appears to suggest that low-dose-rate brachytherapy causes more frequent grade 2 and 3 doctor-reported urogenital adverse effects than prostatectomy, but better patient-reported sexual functions and fewer patients with urinary incontinence than after surgery. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy appears to be socioeconomically cost-effective.

INTERPRETATION

The evidence base with respect to therapeutic effect and toxicity in men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose brachytherapy is regarded as solidly documented. However, there are no good prospective randomised multi-centre trials with overall survival as an endpoint.

Mid-term outcome of permanent prostate iodine-125 brachytherapy in Japanese patients

OBJECTIVES

To analyze mid-term oncological outcomes of low-dose rate brachytherapy in Japanese patients.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2010, 604 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with low-dose rate brachytherapy at Jikei University Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Median follow up was 48 months. Of these patients, 260 (43%) were treated with neoadjuvant therapy, 45 (7.5%) with adjuvant hormonal therapy and 75 (12.4%) with supplemental external beam radiation therapy. Biochemical recurrence was defined as the prostate-specific antigen nadir plus 2 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Of the 604 patients, 219 (36.2%) were low risk, 361 (59.8%) were intermediate risk and 24 (4.0%) had high-risk disease. The median biologically effective dose was 174.4 Gy2. At 8 years, biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 82.2%, 100% and 95.6%, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 8 years was 89.9%, 79.4% and 52.5%, for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival for the high-risk group was significantly lower than the low- and intermediate-risk groups (P < 0.001). Biochemical recurrence-free survival did not differ significantly by biologically effective dose stratification. In multivariate analysis, younger age (P = 0.045), higher prostate-specific antigen (P = 0.004), higher Gleason score (P = 0.006) and higher clinical T stage (P = 0.008) were significant covariates associated with biochemical recurrence. The addition of hormonal therapy or external beam radiation therapy was associated with significantly better outcomes than low-dose rate brachytherapy monotherapy (P = 0.0021 and 0.010). Just four patients experienced G3 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rate brachytherapy results in excellent mid-term oncological outcomes and acceptable toxicity in Japanese patients. In our experience, biologically effective dose does not represent a significant predictor for biochemical recurrence.

Determinants of the combined use of external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy for low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer treatment choices have been shown to vary by physician and patient characteristics. For patients with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer, the authors examined the impact of their clinical, sociodemographic, and radiation oncologists' (RO) characteristics on the likelihood that the patients would receive combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy, a treatment regimen that is at variance with clinical guidelines.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile were used in a retrospective analysis of 5531 patients with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2007, and the 708 ROs who treated them. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between patient and RO characteristics and the use of combined therapy within 6 months of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 356 patients (6.4%) received combined therapy. Nonclinical factors were found to be associated with combined therapy. After adjusting for patient and RO characteristics, the odds of receiving combined therapy for patients residing in Georgia were found to be significantly greater than for all other SEER regions. Black patients were significantly less likely to receive combined therapy (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96 [P= .03]) compared with white patients. In addition, ROs accounted for 36.6% of the variation in patients receiving combined therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic and sociodemographic factors were found to be significantly associated with guideline-discordant combined therapy for patients diagnosed with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. Which RO a patient consults is important in determining whether they receive combined therapy.

Brachytherapy in Men with Prostate Cancer: Update on Indications and Outcomes

Brachytherapy (BT), using either a low-dose-rate (LDR) or mostly high-dose-rate (HDR) technique, is the device able to deliver the highest dose-rate in the most conformal way It is used as monotherapy or in combination with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). LDR-BT is mostly used as monotherapy; HDR-BT is combined with EBRT +/– adjuvant hormone therapy In patients with low-risk disease and in selected intermediate-risk patients, LDR-BT ensures long-term good disease control rates and HDR-BT shows similar results, even if with shorter follow-up. In patients with intermediate/high risk disease the combination therapy (EBRT + HDR-BT) provides better oncological outcomes compared to EBRT monotherapy, even if the role of adjuvant hormone therapy is still unclear. Literature shows variable efficacy of BT in case of local recurrence after EBRT and radical prostatectomy even if few cases have been reported with short follow-up. Side effects are acceptable (urogenital toxicity, urinary incontinence, sexual function) and comparable with the other treatment modalities. So far, randomized controlled trials comparing the different treatment modalities are necessary to clarify indications and real efficacy.

Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for predicting pathologic T3 disease in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: implications for prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

To determine the ability of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (erMRI) and other pretreatment factors to predict the presence and extent of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in men with Gleason score (GS) 7 prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We included patients with clinical stage T1c-T2c, GS=7 (3+4 or 4+3), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10ng/mL who underwent pre-prostatectomy erMRI. We compared pathologic EPE findings with pretreatment factors.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-one men were eligible for inclusion. Pretreatment characteristics were: median age=60 years (42-76); median PSA 4.9ng/mL (0.4-9.9); GS 3+4=61%; T1c=51%; T2a=25%; T2b=21%; T2c=3%; ≥50% positive cores=46%; EPE-positive (EPE+) erMRI=28%. Thirty-three percent had pathologic EPE. Increasing T-stage (p<0.0001) and EPE+ erMRI (p<0.0001) were significant predictors of pathologic EPE, whereas GS (4+3 vs. 3+4) (p=0.14), percentage of positive core biopsies (p=0.15), and pretreatment PSA (p=0.41) were not. Median EPE distance was 1.75mm (range, <1-15mm). The rates of EPE >5mm and EPE >3mm were 11% and 15%, respectively. The odds ratios for erMRI detection of any EPE and of EPE >5mm were 3.06 and 3.75, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

T-stage and EPE+ erMRI predict pathologic EPE in men with GS 7 prostate cancer. The ability of erMRI to detect EPE increases with increasing EPE distance. These findings may be useful in patient selection for prostate brachytherapy monotherapy.

Role of isotope selection in long-term outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with a combination of external beam radiotherapy and low-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the rates of long-term biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) with respect to isotope in intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy.

METHODS

A total of 242 consecutive patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with iodine-125 ((125)I) or palladium-103 ((103)Pd) implants after EBRT (range 45.0-50.4 Gy) from 1996 to 2002. Of the 242 patients, 119 (49.2%) were treated with (125)I and 123 (50.8%) with (103)Pd. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to analyze BRFS, defined according to the Phoenix definition (prostate-specific antigen nadir plus 2 ng/mL) with respect to Gleason score, stage, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level, and source selection. Late genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicities were assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scale.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 10 years, the BRFS rate was 77.3%. A statistically significant difference was found in the 10-year BRFS rate between the (125)I- and (103)Pd-treated groups (82.7% and 70.6%, respectively; P = .001). The addition of hormonal therapy did not improve the 10-year BRFS rate (77.6%) compared with RT alone (77.1%; P = .22). However, a statistically significant difference in the BRFS rate was found with the addition of hormonal therapy to (103)Pd, improving the 10-year BRFS rate for (73.8%) compared with (103)Pd alone (69.1%; P = .008). On multivariate analysis, isotope type ((103)Pd vs (125)I), pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL, and greater tumor stage increased the risk of recurrence by 2.6-fold (P = .007), 5.9-fold (P < .0001), and 1.7-fold (P = .14), respectively.

CONCLUSION

(125)I renders a superior rate of BRFS compared with (103)Pd when used with EBRT. Hormonal therapy does not provide additional benefit in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with a combination of EBRT and brachytherapy, except for the addition of hormonal therapy to (103)Pd.

Combination external beam radiation and brachytherapy boost with androgen deprivation for treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of CALGB 99809

BACKGROUND

Combined transperineal prostate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is widely used for treatment of prostate cancer. Long-term efficacy and toxicity results of a multicenter phase 2 trial assessing combination of EBRT and transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer are presented.

METHODS

Intermediate-risk patients per Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center/National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria received 6 months of ADT, and 45 grays (Gy) EBRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles, followed by transperineal prostate brachytherapy with I125 (100 Gy) or Pd103 (90 Gy). Toxicity was graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group late radiation morbidity scoring systems. Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as time from enrollment to progression (biochemical, local, distant, or prostate cancer death). In addition to the protocol definition of biochemical failure (3 consecutive prostate-specific antigen rises>1.0 ng/mL after 18 months from treatment start), the 1997 American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus and Phoenix definitions were also assessed in defining DFS. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate DFS and overall survival.

RESULTS

Sixty-one of 63 enrolled patients were eligible. Median follow-up was 73 months. Late grade 2 and 3 toxicity, excluding sexual dysfunction, occurred in 20% and 3% of patients. Six-year DFS applying the protocol definition, 1997 ASTRO consensus, and Phoenix definitions was 87.1%, 75.1%, and 84.9%. Six deaths occurred; only 1 was attributed to prostate cancer. Six-year overall survival was 96.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cooperative setting, combination of EBRT and transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost plus ADT resulted in excellent DFS with acceptable late toxicity for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Long-term tumor control after brachytherapy for base-of-prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of patients presenting with cancer at the base of the prostate after brachytherapy as monotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who had undergone transperineal ultrasound-guided implantation with (125)I or (103)Pd seeds as monotherapy between March 1998 and December 2006, at our institution. A minimum follow-up interval of 2 years was required for inclusion in our analysis. Dosimetry was assessed using computed tomography 30 days after the implant. Treatment failure was defined as the appearance of biopsy-proved tumor after seed implantation, radiographic evidence of metastases, receipt of salvage therapy, or elevation of the prostate-specific antigen level beyond the nadir value plus 2 ng/mL.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up interval of 89 months (range 25-128 months), all 52 of the identified patients had no evidence of disease progression or biochemical failure. The mean number of cores sampled at the prostate base was 2.84 (median 2); Gleason scores assigned at central review were 6-8 in all patients. Of the 30 patients (58%) for whom dosimetric data were available at day 30, the median V100 values of the right and left base were 92.0% and 93.5%, respectively, and the median D90 values of the right and left base were 148 Gy and 151 Gy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Permanent prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy results in a high probability of disease-free survival for men with cancer at the base of the prostate.

High dose brachytherapy as monotherapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We evaluated our retrospective, single institution experience with high dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our cohort included 284 patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer, defined as clinical stage T2b/T2c, Gleason score 7 and/or prostate specific antigen 10 to 20 ng/ml, and 1-year minimum followup. Treatment was 2 high dose rate brachytherapy sessions at 3 fractions of 6.5 Gy each for a mean of 19 days. Prostate specific antigen failure was defined as nadir +2 ng/ml.

RESULTS

Mean followup was 35.1 months (median 31.9). Actuarial 5-year cause specific survival and clinical local control were 100%, distant-metastasis-free survival 98.8% and biochemical disease-free survival 94.4%. Clinical stage predicted biochemical disease-free survival. For stage T2a or less 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was 95.1% vs 100% for stage T2b and 77.4% for T2c (p = 0.012). Percent positive biopsy cores and prostate specific antigen nadir were also predictive. International Prostate Symptom Score results remained stable and potency was maintained in 82.6% of patients at 2 years. Pads were used for the first time after brachytherapy in 22 patients (7.7%), mostly for grade 1 incontinence (occasionally or less per week). Excluding patients with prior transurethral prostatectomy, stroke or tremor 2.5% used pads for the first time after treatment. No patient had urethral stricture. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 1 rectal toxicity developed in 12 patients (4.2%) but not beyond grade 1.

CONCLUSIONS

High dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy is safe and effective for patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer. We recommend caution for percent positive biopsy cores exceeding 75% or clinical stage T2c. Excluding such patients the 5-year biochemical disease-free survival rate was 97.5%.

Rectal toxicity and rectal dosimetry in low-dose-rate (125)I permanent prostate implants: a long-term study in 1006 patients

OBJECTIVE

To describe the acute and late rectal toxicity in 1006 prostate brachytherapy patients implanted 1998-2003. To determine whether rectal dose-volume histogram as well as patient and treatment factors were associated with rectal toxicity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Median followup was 60.7 months. Rectal dosimetry was calculated as dose-volume histogram of the rectum using Day 28 CT-based dosimetry and expressed as volume of the rectum in cc receiving 50%, 100%, and 150% of the prescription dose (VR(50cc), VR(100cc), and VR(150cc), respectively). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine the influence of patient, implant, dosimetry, and learning curve factors on the development of acute and late toxicities using a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. Acute toxicity was analyzed using logistic regression and late toxicity using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analysis of variance was used to examine the association between rectal toxicity and rectal dose.

RESULTS

Rectal dosimetry in 93.5% and rectal toxicity in 96.2% have been recorded. Median VR(100)=1.05cc. Late RTOG Grades 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 were recorded in 68%, 23%, 7.3%, 0.9%, and 0.2% patients, respectively. On multivariate analysis, acute RTOG ≥2 rectal toxicity was associated with urinary retention (p=0.036) and learning curve (p=0.015); late RTOG ≥2 was associated with the presence of acute toxicity (p=0.0074), higher VR(100) (p=0.030) and learning curve (p=0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Late rectal RTOG ≥2 rectal toxicity in this cohort was 8%. Increased VR(100), presence of acute rectal toxicity, and learning curve were associated with higher rate of late RTOG ≥2 toxicity. Severe late rectal toxicity after prostate brachytherapy was rare.

Role of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors with curative radiotherapy in men with prostate cancer

Brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy are effective and commonly used treatment modalities in men with localized prostate cancer. In this review, we explore the role of radiation therapy in the curative management of prostate cancer, including the use of conformal therapeutic techniques to allow for the escalation of radiation doses to tumor, along with the use of combined radiation and hormonal therapy to enhance disease outcomes in men with aggressive disease. We also review the possible anticancer role of HMG-CoA reductase inhibiting agents (statins) in men with prostate cancer. Laboratory evidence suggests that statins may have antineoplastic effects when used alone and may sensitize cells to radiation therapy when given in combination. We explore the biologic basis for an anticancer effect and the clinical evidence suggesting statins may aid in improving outcomes with radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Distant metastases following permanent interstitial brachytherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Recent publications have suggested high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy have a lower risk of distant metastases and improved cause-specific survival (CSS) than patients receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy (XRT). To date, none of these studies has compared distant metastases and CSS in brachytherapy patients. In this study, we evaluate such parameters in a consecutive cohort of brachytherapy patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From April 1995 to June 2007, 1,840 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with brachytherapy. Risk groups were stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (www.nccn.org) guidelines. Subgroups of 658, 893, and 289 patients were assigned to low, intermediate, and high-risk categories. Median follow-up was 7.2 years. Along with brachytherapy implantation, 901 (49.0%) patients received supplemental XRT, and 670 (36.4%) patients received androgen deprivation therapy (median duration, 4 months). The mode of failure (biochemical, local, or distant) was determined for each patient for whom therapy failed. Cause of death was determined for each deceased patient. Multiple parameters were evaluated for impact on outcome.

RESULTS

For the entire cohort, metastases-free survival (MFS) and CSS at 12 years were 98.1% and 98.2%, respectively. When rates were stratified by low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, the 12-year MFS was 99.8%, 98.1%, and 93.8% (p < 0.001), respectively. CSS rates were 99.8%, 98.0%, and 95.3% (p < 0.001) for low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Biochemical progression-free survival was 98.7%, 95.9% and 90.4% for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox-regression analysis, MFS was mostly closely related to Gleason score and year of treatment, whereas CSS was most closely associated with Gleason score.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent CSS and MFS rates are achievable with high-quality brachytherapy for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. These results compare favorably to alternative treatment modalities. In particular, our MFS and CSS rates for high-risk patients appear superior to those of published radical prostatectomy series.

High-dose-rate monotherapy: safe and effective brachytherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy used as the only treatment (monotherapy) for early prostate cancer is consistent with current concepts in prostate radiobiology, and the dose is reliably delivered in a prospectively defined anatomic distribution that meets all the requirements for safe and effective therapy. We report the disease control and toxicity of HDR monotherapy from California Endocurietherapy (CET) and William Beaumont Hospital (WBH) in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

There were 298 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with HDR monotherapy between 1996 and 2005. Two biologically equivalent hypofractionation protocols were used. At CET the dose was 42 Gy in six fractions (two implantations 1 week apart) delivered to a computed tomography-defined planning treatment volume. At WBH the dose was 38 Gy in four fractions (one implantation) based on intraoperative transrectal ultrasound real-time treatment planning. The bladder, urethral, and rectal dose constraints were similar. Toxicity was scored with the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 5.2 years. The median age of the patients was 63 years, and the median value of the pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 6.0 ng/mL. The 8-year results were 99% local control, 97% biochemical control (nadir +2), 99% distant metastasis-free survival, 99% cause-specific survival, and 95% overall survival. Toxicity was scored per event, meaning that an individual patient with more than one symptom was represented repeatedly in the morbidity data table. Genitourinary toxicity consisted of 10% transient Grade 2 urinary frequency or urgency and 3% Grade 3 episode of urinary retention. Gastrointestinal toxicity was <1%.

CONCLUSIONS

High disease control rates and low morbidity demonstrate that HDR monotherapy is safe and effective for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Transperineal prostate brachytherapy, using I-125 seed with or without adjuvant androgen deprivation, in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: study protocol for a phase III, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

Background

The optimal protocol for ¹²⁵I-transperineal prostatic brachytherapy (TPPB) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains controversial. Data on the efficacy of combining androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with ¹²⁵I-TPPB in this group remain limited and consequently the guidelines of the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) provide no firm recommendations.

Methods/Design

Seed and Hormone for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer (SHIP) 0804 is a phase III, multicenter, randomized, controlled study that will investigate the impact of adjuvant ADT following neoadjuvant ADT and ¹²⁵I-TPPB. Prior to the end of March, 2011, a total of 420 patients with intermediate-risk, localized PCa will be enrolled and randomized to one of two treatment arms. These patients will be recruited from 20 institutions, all of which have broad experience of ¹²⁵I-TPPB. Pathological slides will be centrally reviewed to confirm patient eligibility. The patients will initially undergo 3-month ADT prior to ¹²⁵I-TPPB. Those randomly assigned to adjuvant therapy will subsequently undergo 9 months of adjuvant ADT. All participants will be assessed at baseline and at the following intervals: every 3 months for the first 24 months following ¹²⁵I-TPPB, every 6 months during the 24- to 60-month post-¹²⁵I-TPPB interval, annually between 60 and 84 months post-¹²⁵I-TPPB, and on the 10th anniversary of treatment.

The primary endpoint is biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS). Secondary endpoints are overall survival (OS), clinical progression-free survival, disease-specific survival, salvage therapy non-adaptive interval, acceptability (assessed using the international prostate symptom score [IPSS]), quality of life (QOL) evaluation, and adverse events. In the correlative study (SHIP36B), we also evaluate biopsy results at 36 months following treatment to examine the relationship between the results and the eventual recurrence after completion of radiotherapy.

Discussion

These two multicenter trials (SHIP0804 & SHIP36B) are expected to provide crucial data regarding the efficacy, acceptability and safety of adjuvant ADT. SHIP36B will also provide important information about the prognostic implications of PSA levels in intermediate-risk PCa patients treated with ¹²⁵I-TPPB.

Trial registration

NCT00664456, NCT00898326, JUSMH-BRI-GU05-01, JUSMH-TRIGU0709

Localized prostate cancer with intermediate- or high-risk features treated with combined external beam radiotherapy and iodine-125 seed brachytherapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to compare the results of the combined external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy vs. brachytherapy alone for prostate cancer treatment in patients with intermediate and high risk of disease recurrence.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ninety-six patients were treated from January 1998 to December 2006. Twenty-four patients received combined treatment and 72 patients received brachytherapy alone. Patients were classified into intermediate or high risk of recurrence according to the D'Amico's classification. The prescribed dose for brachytherapy was 145Gy as monotherapy and 110Gy for combined treatment. The dose of EBRT was 45Gy over 5 weeks, with 1.8Gy daily fractions. Results were analyzed based on Phoenix definition of biochemical recurrence, that is, nadir plus 2ng/mL.

RESULTS

Biochemical control was achieved by 96% (23 of 24) of patients receiving combined treatment and by 72% (52 of 72) in the group treated by brachytherapy alone (p<0.015). The addition of EBRT resulted in a 94% biochemical disease-free survival at 5 years; and in brachytherapy alone group, the rate was 54% (p<0.011). Mean followup was 96 months (24-132 months; confidence interval 95%: 90-102).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that in patients with localized prostate cancer, with intermediate and high risk of biochemical recurrence, the addition of EBRT can confer a significant biochemical control advantage when added to brachytherapy.

Late rectal toxicity after prostate brachytherapy: influence of supplemental external beam radiation on dose-volume histogram analysis

PURPOSE

To describe the rate of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity after prostate brachytherapy and describe how external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) may influence the association of rectal dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters with rectal toxicity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred ten patients with prostate cancer were treated with I-125 brachytherapy alone (n=62, 144 Gy) or as a boost (n=48, 108 Gy) after 45-Gy EBRT. CT-based dosimetry was performed a median of 29 days after implantation. GI toxicity was evaluated by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. Median followup was 41 months.

RESULTS

Eleven patients developed Grade 2+GI toxicity. Men treated with EBRT had an increased risk of GI toxicity, with freedom from Grade 2+ toxicity of 82% vs. 91% for implant alone, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.3044). Of the DVH parameters analyzed, only the rectal volume receiving the prescription dose (rV(100)(%)) was associated with late Grade 2+GI toxicity. Men with rV(100%) >or= 0.05 cc had a 4-year freedom from Grade 2+ toxicity of 77% vs. 100% for those with an rV(100%) <0.05 cc (p=0.0248). However, this relationship was only significant for the subset of patients treated with EBRT, where men with rV(100%) >or= 0.05 cc had a 26% risk of Grade 2+ toxicity compared with 0% for rV(100%) <0.05 cc. Additional DVH parameters, including dose to the hottest 0.1 cc (p=0.0199), 1% (p=0.0086), and 3% (p=0.0043), were also associated with GI toxicity but only in men treated with EBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Supplemental EBRT may lower the threshold for rectal toxicity after prostate brachytherapy. Morbidity can be minimized by observing rectal constraints.

Excellent results from high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam for prostate cancer are not improved by androgen deprivation

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer patients treated with high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy were stratified by risk group for analysis to determine whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) affected outcome.

METHODS

From 1991 through 1998, 411 patients were treated with 4 fractions of 5.5 to 6.0 Gy high dose rate brachytherapy and a total of 36.0 to 39.6 Gy external beam radiation therapy (dose escalation over time). The dataset was prospective. Administration of ADT was not randomized, but it was the primary study variable. During this period, ADT was administered across all risk groups for various indications. It did not necessarily reflect advanced disease or large prostate size. There were 200 patients in the "ADT Group" (20% low, 48% intermediate, and 32% high risk) and 211 in the "No ADT Group" (33% low, 44% intermediate, 23% high risk). The median follow-up was 6.4 years. Cases were grouped according to low, intermediate, and high risk groups to reduce the effects of unrecognized selection bias for or against the ADT group. The prostate specific antigen (PSA) nadir plus 2.0 ng/ml (nadir + 2) was used as the biochemical control end point. Local control, PSA progression-free survival, distant metastasis free survival, and cause-specific survival were compared.

RESULTS

The 10 year PSA-PFS (nadir + 2) for all 411 patients was 81%. The results stratified by risk group were: low 92%, intermediate 87%, and high 63%. The low and intermediate risk groups were not statistically different from one another but they were both significantly better than the high risk group. ADT versus No ADT 10-year survival showed no significant differences for any outcome variable: PSA-PFS (83% vs. 81% ns), local control (97% vs. 99%), distant metastasis free survival (94% vs. 97%), and cause-specific survival (97% vs. 97%). A subset analysis of PSA-PFS (nadir + 2) stratified by risk group revealed no difference between the ADT and No ADT groups.

CONCLUSIONS

high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy resulted in high rates of local control, PSA progression-free survival, distant metastasis free survival, and cause-specific survival in all risk groups. Improved outcome from the use of androgen deprivation was not observed.

Radiation therapy approaches to the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

Radiation therapy modalities have been shown to offer patients a nonoperative option for definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer as well as options for adjuvant or salvage therapy in high-risk prostate cancer patients. In patients with high-risk, localized disease, radiation therapy with or without adjuvant hormonal therapy is considered an excellent treatment option because of its efficacy within the prostate and among local periprostatic structures, addressing micrometastatic disease. Following radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk or recurrent disease, radiotherapy can increase oncologic efficacy in both the adjuvant and salvage setting. Continued studies are underway to address ongoing concerns of sparing surrounding tissues unnecessary radiation while administering high-dose radiation to the prostate and targeted periprostatic structures. Newer technologies are using real-time imaging and computer-simulated motion calculation to adjust for physiological organ motion with respect to bony landmarks classically used to map areas of radiation administration.

Definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer

The probability of extraprostatic disease may be estimated based on clinical T-stage, pretreatment prostatic-specific antigen, Gleason score, and percent positive core biopsies. Patients with disease confined to the prostate may be treated with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy (RT). Patients with extraprostatic disease without evidence of distant metastases are best managed with RT. RT consisting of either external beam and/or brachytherapy results in a relatively high likelihood of cure, particularly for those with low- and intermediate-risk disease. The impact of elective nodal RT on survival is unclear. Dose escalation results in improved biochemical relapse-free survival compared with standard dose RT. Androgen deprivation therapy likely improves the probability of disease control in patients with high-risk cancers.

Technology Insight: Combined external-beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy in the management of prostate cancer

External-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with brachytherapy is an attractive treatment option for selected patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. This therapeutic strategy offers dosimetric coverage if local-regional microscopic disease is present and provides a highly conformal boost of radiation to the prostate and immediate surrounding tissues. Either low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent brachytherapy or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary brachytherapy can be combined with EBRT; such combined-modality therapy (CMT) is typically used to treat patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk, clinically localized disease. Controversy persists with regard to indications for CMT, choice of LDR or HDR boost, isotope selection for LDR, and integration of EBRT and brachytherapy. Initial findings from prospective, multicenter trials of CMT support the feasibility of this strategy. Updated results from these trials as well as those of ongoing and new phase III trials should help to define the role of CMT in the management of prostate cancer. In the meantime, long-term expectations for outcomes of CMT are based largely on the experience of single institutions, which demonstrate that CMT with EBRT and either LDR or HDR brachytherapy can provide freedom from disease recurrence with acceptable toxicity.

Final report of multicenter Canadian Phase III randomized trial of 3 versus 8 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy before conventional-dose radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of 3 vs. 8 months of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before conventional-dose radiotherapy (RT) on disease-free survival for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between February 1995 and June 2001, 378 men were randomized to either 3 or 8 months of flutamide and goserelin before 66 Gy RT at four participating centers. The median baseline prostate-specific antigen level was 9.7 ng/mL (range, 1.3-189). Of the 378 men, 26% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 31% high-risk disease. The two arms were balanced in terms of age, Gleason score, clinical T category, risk group, and presenting prostate-specific antigen level. The median follow-up for living patients was 6.6 years (range, 1.6-10.1). Of the 378 patients, 361 were evaluable, and 290 were still living.

RESULTS

The 5-year actuarial freedom from failure rate for the 3- vs. 8-month arms was 72% vs. 75%, respectively (p = 0.18). No difference was found in the failure types between the two arms. The median prostate-specific antigen level at the last follow-up visit for patients without treatment failure was 0.6 ng/mL in the 3-month arm vs. 0.50 ng/mL in the 8-month arm. The disease-free survival rate at 5 years was improved for the high-risk patients in the 8-month arm (71% vs. 42%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A longer period of NHT before standard-dose RT did not alter the patterns of failure when combined with 66-Gy RT. High-risk patients in the 8-month arm had significant improvement in the 5-year disease-free survival rate.