Combining theoretical potential and advanced technology in high-dose rate brachytherapy boost therapy for prostate cancer

AAPM Task Group Report 267: A joint AAPM GEC-ESTRO report on biophysical models and tools for the planning and evaluation of brachytherapy

Brachytherapy utilizes a multitude of radioactive sources and treatment techniques that often exhibit widely different spatial and temporal dose delivery patterns. Biophysical models, capable of modeling the key interacting effects of dose delivery patterns with the underlying cellular processes of the irradiated tissues, can be a potentially useful tool for elucidating the radiobiological effects of complex brachytherapy dose delivery patterns and for comparing their relative clinical effectiveness. While the biophysical models have been used largely in research settings by experts, it has also been used increasingly by clinical medical physicists over the last two decades. A good understanding of the potentials and limitations of the biophysical models and their intended use is critically important in the widespread use of these models. To facilitate meaningful and consistent use of biophysical models in brachytherapy, Task Group 267 (TG-267) was formed jointly with the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) and The Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) to review the existing biophysical models, model parameters, and their use in selected brachytherapy modalities and to develop practice guidelines for clinical medical physicists regarding the selection, use, and interpretation of biophysical models. The report provides an overview of the clinical background and the rationale for the development of biophysical models in radiation oncology and, particularly, in brachytherapy; a summary of the results of literature review of the existing biophysical models that have been used in brachytherapy; a focused discussion of the applications of relevant biophysical models for five selected brachytherapy modalities; and the task group recommendations on the use, reporting, and implementation of biophysical models for brachytherapy treatment planning and evaluation. The report concludes with discussions on the challenges and opportunities in using biophysical models for brachytherapy and with an outlook for future developments.

Stereotactic Ablative Brachytherapy: Recent Advances in Optimization of Radiobiological Cancer Therapy

Brachytherapy (BT), a type of focal anti-cancer radiotherapy, delivers a highly focused radiation dose to localized tumors, sparing surrounding normal tissues. Recent technological advances have helped to increase the accuracy of BT and, thus, improve BT-based cancer treatment. Stereotactic ablative brachytherapy (SABT) was designed to improve the ablative effect of radiation, which was achieved via improved image guidance, and calculation of ablative dose, shorter treatment duration, and better organ preservation. Recently collected data characterized SABT as having the potential to cure various early-stage cancers. The method provides higher tumor control rate levels that were previously achievable only by surgical resection. Notably, SABT is suitable for application with unresectable malignancies. However, the pathological assessment of SABT irradiated tumors is limited due to difficulties in specimen acquisition. Prostate, lung, liver, and gynecological cancers are the most commonly reported SABT-treated malignancies. This study will give an overview of SABT, focusing on the advances in SABT optimization, and provide insights on the future benefits of the combined application of SABT with cancer immunotherapies.

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.

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on outcomes and toxicities among men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 3217 patients, from 1998 to 2013, subdivided into 5 subgroups: (I) no T2DM; (II) T2DM receiving oral antihyperglycemic agent that contains metformin, no insulin; (III) T2DM receiving nonmetformin oral agent alone, no insulin; (IV) T2DM receiving any insulin; and (V) T2DM not receiving medication. Outcome measures were overall survival, freedom from biochemical failure (BF), freedom from distant metastasis, cancer-specific survival, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log rank tests, Fine and Gray competing risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), Cox models, and subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were used.

RESULTS

Of the 3217 patients, 1295 (40%) were low-risk, 1192 (37%) were intermediate-risk, and 652 (20%) were high risk. The group I to V distribution was 81%, 8%, 5%, 3%, and 4%. The median dose was 78 Gy, and the median follow-up time was 50 (range, 1-190) months. Group V had increased mortality (sHR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.54), BF (sHR, 2.14; 0.88-1.83), and cause-specific mortality (sHR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.31-11). Acute toxicities were higher in group IV versus group I (genitourinary: 38% vs. 26%; P = .01; gastrointestinal: 21% vs. 5%; P = 001). Late toxicities were higher in groups IV and V versus group I (12%-14% vs. 2%-6%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Men with T2DM not receiving medication and men with T2DM receiving insulin had worse outcomes and toxicities compared to other patients.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Is robotic arm stereotactic body radiation therapy “virtual high dose ratebrachytherapy” for prostate cancer? An analysis of comparative effectiveness using published data [corrected]

High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) monotherapy and robotic arm (i.e., CyberKnife) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are emerging technologies that have become popular treatment options for prostate cancer. Proponents of both HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT claim that these modalities are as efficacious as intensity-modulated radiation therapy in treating prostate cancer. Moreover, proponents of robotic arm SBRT believe it is more effective than HDR-BT monotherapy because SBRT is non-invasive, touting it as 'virtual HDR-BT.' We perform a comparative effective analysis of the two technologies. The tumor control rates and toxicities of HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT are promising. However, at present, it would be inappropriate to state that HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT are as efficacious or effective as other treatment modalities for prostate cancer, which have stronger foundations of evidence. Studies reporting on these technologies have relatively short follow-up time, few patients and are largely retrospective.