Does ADT benefit unfavourable intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy boost and external beam radiotherapy? A propensity-score matched analysis

Biochemical control in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer after EBRT with and without brachytherapy boost

PURPOSE

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy boost (BTB) has not been compared in prospective studies using guideline-recommended radiation dose and recommended androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we compared modern-day EBRT with BTB in terms of biochemical control (BC) for intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients were treated for primary IR or HR prostate cancer during 1999-2019 at three high-volume centers. Inclusion criteria were prescribed ≥ 76 Gy EQD2 (α/β = 1.5 Gy) for IR and ≥ 78 Gy EQD2 (α/β = 1.5 Gy) for HR as EBRT alone or with BTB. All HR patients received ADT and pelvic irradiation, which were optional in IR cases. BC between therapies was compared in survival analyses.

RESULTS

Of 2769 initial patients, 1176 met inclusion criteria: 468 HR (260 EBRT, 208 BTB) and 708 IR (539 EBRT, 169 BTB). Median follow-up was 49 and 51 months for HR and IR, respectively. BTB patients with ≥ 113 Gy EQD2Gy experienced a stable, good BC outcome compared with BTB at lower doses. Patients treated with ≥ 113 Gy EQD2Gy also experienced significantly improved BC compared with EBRT (10-year BC failure rates after ≥ 113 Gy BTB and EBRT: respectively 20.4 and 41.8% for HR and 7.5 and 20.8% for IR).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with IR and HR prostate cancer, BTB with ≥ 113 Gy EQD2Gy offered a BC advantage compared with dose-escalated EBRT and lower BTB doses.

GEC-ESTRO ACROP prostate brachytherapy guidelines

This is an evidence-based guideline for prostate brachytherapy. Throughout levels of evidence quoted are those from the Oxford Centre for Evidence based Medicine (https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009). Prostate interstitial brachytherapy using either permanent or temporary implantation is an established and evolving treatment technique for non-metastatic prostate cancer. Permanent brachytherapy uses Low Dose Rate (LDR) sources, most commonly I-125, emitting photon radiation over months. Temporary brachytherapy involves first placing catheters within the prostate and, on confirmation of accurate positioning, temporarily introducing the radioactive source, generally High Dose Rate (HDR) radioactive sources of Ir-192 or less commonly Co-60. Pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy has also been used for prostate cancer [1] but few centres have adopted this approach. Previous GEC ESTRO recommendations have considered LDR and HDR separately [2-4] but as there is considerable overlap, this paper provides updated guidance for both treatment techniques. Prostate brachytherapy allows safe radiation dose escalation beyond that achieved using external beam radiotherapy alone as it has greater conformity around the prostate, sparing surrounding rectum, bladder, and penile bulb. In addition there are fewer issues with changes in prostate position during treatment delivery. Systematic review and randomised trials using both techniques as boost treatments demonstrate improved PSA control when compared to external beam radiotherapy alone [5-7].

Low-/high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: long-term results from a single institution team experience

Purpose

To compare brachytherapy (BT) boost of low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) techniques in patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Material and methods

Between January 2005 and February 2018, 142 patients (50 LDR and 92 HDR) with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with a BT boost, and retrospectively analyzed. Prescribed dose was 45 Gy with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus 100-108 Gy with LDR-BT, and 60 Gy with EBRT plus one fraction of 10 Gy with HDR-BT. 99% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 6 months. Primary endpoint was to compare LDR and HDR boosts in terms of biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Secondary endpoint, after re-classifying patients into "favorable" and "unfavorable" sub-groups, was to analyze differences with a similar treatment intensity.

Results

Median overall follow-up for the total cohort was 66.5 months (range, 16-185 months). There were no significant differences in bPFS, overall survival, cause specific survival, local failure, lymph node failure, or distant failure when LDR or HDR was employed. bPFS at 90 months was 100% for favorable, and 89% and 85% for unfavorable patients at 60 months and 90 months, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.017). The crude incidence of genitourinary acute and chronic toxicity grade 3 was 0.7% and 4%, respectively. Twelve patients (8%) had chronic rectal hemorrhage grade 2, in whom argon was applied (4 LDR and 8 HDR).

Conclusions

Combined treatment is an excellent therapeutic option in patients with intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma, with similar results in both LDR and HDR approaches and very low toxicities. Importantly, the current literature has indicated that unfavorable-risk patients belong to a different category, and should be treated as patients with high-risk factors. Therefore, the stratification and identification of both risk groups is extremely relevant.