Prostate brachytherapy in men > or =75 years of age

Irradiation of localized prostate cancer in the elderly: A systematic literature review

•

Oncological benefit for elderly patients with optimal treatment.

•

Elderly patients often received inadequate treatment.

•

Elderly comorbidities can influence oncological outcomes and treatment tolerance.

•

Optimal curative treatment after oncogeriatric assessment.

Purpose

To analyze the literature that addresses radiation therapy for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (PC) in the elderly.

Patients and methods

A PubMed literature search was conducted including articles from 01/01/2000 to 30/06/21, with the following keywords: PC, radiotherapy/brachytherapy and elderly. The analysis mainly focused on the issue of under-treatment in the elderly and the benefit/risk balance of irradiation.

Results

Of the 176 references analyzed, 24 matched the selection criteria. The definition of “elderly patient” varied from 70 to 80 years. The analysis was impacted by the inhomogeneous primary end points used in each cohort. Age was often an obstacle to radical treatment, with a subsequent risk of under-treatment, particularly in patients with a poorer prognosis. However, comparable elderly oncological outcomes were compared to younger patients, both with external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with brachytherapy boost. Late toxicity rates are low and most often comparable to younger populations. However, a urinary over- toxicity was observed in the super-elderly (>80 years) after brachytherapy boost. The use of ADT should be considered in light of comorbidities, and may even be deleterious in some patients.

Conclusion

Due to the increase in life expectancy, the management of PC in the elderly is a challenge for patients, clinicians and health insurance payers. Except for unfit men, elderly patients remain candidates for optimal curative treatment (i.e. regardless of age) after oncogeriatric assessment. More solid data from prospective trials conducted specially in this population will provide better guidance in our daily clinical practice.

High-Dose-Rate brachytherapy boost for elderly patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer: 5-year clinical outcome of the PROSTAGE cohort

•

Intermediate/high risk elderly prostate cancer benefits less from received standards of care.

•

Age is an independent factor for disease control and tolerance.

•

Brachytherapy boost remains efficient and feasible in the elderly.

•

Careful discussion for super elderly patients (>80 y) is warranted.

•

Oncogeriatric assessment is necessary to identify best candidates.

Purpose

To analyze the oncological outcome in elderly (>70 years) prostate cancer after high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDB) boost.

Materials/methods

In this retrospective study, patients with intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by HDB boost with/without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The impact of age (≤70y vs. > 70y) was investigated. Oncological outcome focused on biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cause-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Late genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities were investigated.

Results

From 07/08 to 01/22, 518 pts received a HDB boost, and 380 were analyzed (≤70y:177pts [46.6%] vs. > 70y:203pts [53.4%]). Regarding NCCN classification, 98 pts (≤70y: 53pts; >70y: 45pts; p = 0.107) and 282 pts (≤70y: 124pts; >70y: 158pts; p = NS) were IR and HR pts respectively. Median EBRT dose was 46 Gy [37.5–46] in 23 fractions [14–25]. HDB boost delivered a single fraction of 14/15 Gy (79%). ADT was used in 302 pts (≤70y: 130pts; >70y: 172pts; p = 0.01). With MFU of 72.6 months [67–83] for the whole cohort, 5-y bRFS, 5-y CSS and 5-y OS were 88% [85–92], 99% [97–100] and 94% [92–97] respectively; there was no statistical difference between the two age groups except for 5-y CSS (p = 0.05). Late GU and GI toxicity rates were 32.4% (G ≥ 3 7.3%) and 10.1% (no G3) respectively.

Conclusions

For IR and HR prostate cancers, HDB boost leads to high rates of disease control with few late G ≥ 3 GU/GI toxicities. For elderly pts, HDB boost remains warranted mainly in HR pts, while competing comorbidity factors influence OS.

Tumor burden and location as prognostic factors in patients treated by iodine seed implant brachytherapy for localized prostate cancers

Background

Iodine seed implant brachytherapy is indicated for low risk and selected favorable intermediate risk prostate cancers. A percentage of positive biopsies > 50% is usually considered as a contra-indication, and the tumor location could also influence the treatment efficacy. We studied the association of the percentage of positive biopsy cores, and tumor location, with progression-free survival.

Methods

Among the 382 patients treated at our center by permanent implant iodine seed brachytherapy for a localized prostate cancer between 2006 and 2013, 282 had accessible detailed pathology reports, a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and were included. Progression was defined as a biochemical, local, nodal, or distant metastatic relapse. We studied cancer location on biopsies (base, midgland or apex of the prostate) and percentage of positive biopsy cores, as well as potential confounders (pre-treatment PSA, tumor stage, Gleason score, risk group according to D’Amico’s classification modified by Zumsteg, adjunction of androgen deprivation therapy, and dosimetric data).

Results

Most patients (197; 69.9%) had a low risk, 67 (23.8%) a favorable intermediate risk, 16 (5.7%) an unfavorable intermediate risk, and 1 (0.3%) a high-risk prostate cancer. An involvement of the apex was found for 131 patients (46,5%), of the midgland for 149 (52,8%), and of the base for 145 (51,4%). The median percentage of positive biopsy cores was 17% [3–75%]. The median follow-up was 64 months [12–140]. Twenty patients (7%) progressed: 4 progressions (20%) were biochemical only, 7 (35%) were prostatic or seminal, 6 (30%) were nodal, and 3 (15%) were metastatic. The median time to failure was 39.5 months [9–108]. There were more Gleason scores ≥7 among patients who progressed (40% vs 19%; p = 0.042). None of the studied covariates (including tumor location, and percentage of positive biopsy cores), were significantly associated with progression-free survival. The risk group showed a trend towards an association (p = 0.055).

Conclusions

Brachytherapy is an efficient treatment (5-year control rate of 93%) for patients carefully selected with classical criteria. The percentage and location of positive biopsies were not significantly associated with progression-free survival. A Gleason score ≥ 7 was more frequent in case of progression.

Challenges Facing Radiation Oncologists in The Management of Older Cancer Patients: Consensus of The International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group

The management of older cancer patients remains difficult because of data paucity. Radiation oncologists need to identify potential issues which could affect treatment of those patients. A workshop was organized in Barcelona among international radiation oncologists with special interest in the management of older cancer patients on April 22, 2018. The following consensus was reached: 1. Older cancer patients often faced unconscious discriminating bias from cancer specialists and institutions because of their chronological age. 2. Advances in radiotherapy techniques have allowed patients with multiple co-morbidities precluding surgery or systemic therapy to achieve potential cure in early disease stages. 3. The lack of biomarkers for frailty remains an impediment to future research. 4. Access to healthcare insurance and daily transportation remains an issue in many countries; 5. Hypofractionation, brachytherapy, or stereotactic techniques may be ideally suited for older cancer patients to minimize transportation issues and to improve tolerance to radiotherapy. 6. Patients with locally advanced disease who are mentally and physically fit should receive combined therapy for potential cure. 7. The role of systemic therapy alone or combined with radiotherapy for frail patients needs to be defined in future clinical trials because of targeted agents or immunotherapy may be less toxic compared to conventional chemotherapy.

Gleason score stratification according to age at diagnosis in 1028 men

AIM OF THE STUDY

Gleason score stratification according to age at diagnosis has been retrospectively evaluated in 1028 men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2014, 2435 Caucasian men aged between 37 and 92 years underwent transperineal prostate biopsy for suspicion of PCa. The indications were as follows: abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA values > 10 ng/ml or between 4.1-10 or 2.6-4 ng/ml, with free/total PSA < 25% and < 20%, respectively.

RESULTS

In 1028 (42.2%) patients with median PSA of 9.6 ng/ml a PCa was found (median age 62.3 years; range: 42-92 years); 757 (73.7%) vs. 271 (26.3%) men had a T1c vs. T2 clinical stage, respectively. Median Gleason score was 7 (range: 6-10). The Gleason score progressively increased with the age of the patients at diagnosis, and a significantly correlation between Gleason score ≥ 8 and men older than 80 years was demonstrated (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The detection rate of aggressiveness of PCa progressively increased with the age at diagnosis; Gleason score ≥ 8 was more frequently diagnosed in men older than 80 years with PSA values > 10 ng/ml (about 80% of the cases) and abnormal DRE (about 60% of the cases).

Challenges of managing elderly men with prostate cancer

The incidence of prostate cancer increases with age. Current evidence suggests that prostate cancer is under treated in patients aged ≥70 years, despite evidence of efficacy and acceptable toxicity. Radical cystectomy and definitive radiotherapy are often denied owing to fears of post-operative complications and radiotherapy-associated gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. However, modern radical prostatectomy techniques provide excellent clinical outcomes with low perioperative morbidity. Moreover, volume-restricted intensity-modulated radiation therapy is a significant improvement over previous 2D conformal radiotherapy with similar efficacy and lower toxicity. Androgen-deprivation therapy is also under-prescribed among the elderly, owing to concerns of increases in cardiac deaths and osteoporosis acceleration. However, prospective trials have not identified any increase in cardiovascular mortality among elderly men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy compared to age-matched controls. Most patients on androgen deprivation eventually progress to a castration-resistant state. At this stage, the disease still responds to newer agents that target the androgen pathway and to chemotherapy. Among the elderly, chemotherapy is under-prescribed even though it has been demonstrated to be palliative and improve survival. We describe the trends in prostate cancer management in the elderly and the importance of assessing comorbidity status, tumour characteristics, and health status, including a complete geriatric evaluation, before making treatment recommendations.