Outcomes with brachytherapy based dose escalation for gleason 8 versus 9-10 prostate cancer: An NCDB analysis

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.

Multi-Institutional Clinical Outcomes of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancers Treated With Contemporary High-Dose Radiation and Long-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy

AIMS

This multicentric retrospective study reports long-term clinical outcomes of non-metastatic grade group 5 prostate cancers treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated across 19 institutions were studied. The key endpoints that were evaluated were 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival, together with EBRT-related acute and late toxicities. The impact of various prognostic factors on the studied endpoints was analysed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 462 patients, 88% (405) had Gleason 9 disease and 31% (142) had primary Gleason pattern 5. A prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan was used for staging in 33% (153), 80% (371) were staged as T3/T4 and 30% (142) with pelvic nodal disease. The median ADT duration was 24 months; 66% received hypofractionated EBRT and 71.4% (330) received pelvic nodal irradiation. With a median follow-up of 56 months, the 5-year bRFS, MFS and overall survival were 73.1%, 77.4% and 90.5%, respectively. Primary Gleason pattern 5 was associated with worse bRFS, MFS and overall survival with hazard ratios of 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.73, P < 0.001), 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96, P = 0.031) and 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.97, P = 0.040), respectively, whereas pelvic nodal disease was associated with worse bRFS (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.98, P = 0.039) and MFS (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.85, P = 0.006). The acute and late radiation-related toxicities were low overall and pelvic nodal irradiation was associated with higher toxicities.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary EBRT and long-term ADT led to excellent 5-year clinical outcomes and low rates of toxicity in this cohort of non-metastatic grade group 5 prostate cancers. Primary Gleason pattern 5 and pelvic node disease portends inferior clinical outcomes.