Comparison of low and intermediate source strengths for 125I prostate brachytherapy implants

Analysis of outcomes after non-contour-based dose painting of dominant intra-epithelial lesion in intra-operative low-dose rate brachytherapy

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer (IR-PCa) treated with low-dose rate I-125 seed brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and targeted dose painting of a histologic dominant intra-epithelial lesion (DIL) to those without a DIL.

Methods

455 patients with IR-PCa were treated at a single center with intra-operatively planned LDR-BT, each following the same in-house dose constraints. Patients with a DIL on pathology had hot spots localized to that region but no specific contouring during the procedure.

Results

396 (87%) patients had a DIL. Baseline tumor characteristics and overall prostate dosimetry were similar between patients with and without DIL except the median number of biopsy cores taken: 10 (10–12) vs 12 (10–12) (p = 0.002).

19 (5%) and 18 (5%) of patients with and 1 (2%) and 0 (0%) of those without DIL experienced CTCAE grade 2 and 3 toxicity respectively. Overall, toxicity grade did not significantly correlate with presence of DIL (p = 0.10).

Estimated 7-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) was 84% (95% confidence interval: 79–89) and 70% (54–89) in patients with and without a DIL (log-rank p = 0.315). In DIL patients, cox regression revealed location of DIL (“Base” vs “Apex” HR: 1.03; 1.00–1.06; p = 0.03) and older age (70 vs 60 HR: 1.62; 1.06–2.49; p = 0.03) was associated with poor FFBF.

Conclusions

Targeting DIL through dose painting during intraoperatively planned LDR-BT provided no statistically significant change in FFBF. Patients with DILs in the prostate base had slightly lower FFBF despite DIL boost.

Multicenter Evaluation of Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival Outcomes for Intraoperatively Planned Prostate Brachytherapy Using an Automated Delivery System

PURPOSE

To report biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer treated with intraoperatively planned low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy using an automated delivery system (IO-LDRB).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2003 and 2013, 2608 patients from 3 centers were treated with IO-LDRB as single-modality treatment for low or low-tier intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Databases from the 3 centers have been analyzed. These independent databases were collected prospectively. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were then compared, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) were generated, and the Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine factors predicting for relapse.

RESULTS

A total of 2608 patients with a median follow-up of 4.7 (interquartile range, 3.1-6.9) years were analyzed. Median age was 64 (range, 42-84) years. In these patients, median initial prostate-specific antigen was 5.5 ng/mL, 74% were T1, and 26% were T2; 73% were Gleason 6, and 25% Gleason 7. Median percentage of biopsy cores positive was 33%, and median gland volume was 34.2 cm³. Eleven percent of patients received hormones for a median of 3.0 months before implantation. Median seed activity was 0.437 mCi, D90 (dose covering 90% of the prostate volume) was 186.7 Gy, and V100 was 99.37%. Biochemical relapse was observed in 124 patients (4.8%), and median time to failure was 4.0 years. Predicted bRFS was 93% at 7 years. On Cox regression bRFS was dependent only on D90 at the time of implantation and prostate-specific antigen density.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that IO-LDRB is an effective treatment option for patients with low and low-tier intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Rates of biochemical relapse remain low several years after treatment. These results compared favorably to published manual preplan technique results.

Robustness to source displacement in dual air kerma strength planning for focal low-dose-rate brachytherapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To describe the use of dual source strength implants for focal low-dose-rate brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An interneedle dual source strength planning strategy is described for focal low-dose-rate brachytherapy of the prostate. The implanted treatment plans were designed using peripheral (except near the rectum) needles loaded with high strength (0.9 U) sources and central needles loaded with low strength (0.4 U) sources ("interneedle" dual strength planning). This approach has been applied for focally treating 3 patients. In this article, we compare the characteristics and robustness to source motion of interneedle dual strength planning with four alternative planning strategies (single strength high, low, and intermediate, and intraneedle dual strength) on 50 simulated cases.

RESULTS

Interneedle dual source strength planning results in greater robustness to source motion and overall lower seed and needle density compared to the standard low source strength planning currently used in our centre. This planning approach is also significantly superior to single strength high, single strength intermediate and intraneedle dual strength planning strategies in terms of high dose to the urethral avoidance structure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of interneedle dual source strength treatment plans for focal low-dose-rate brachytherapy is possibly the practical solution for limiting the density of sources required to deliver the prescribed dose while limiting proximity of high strength sources to organs at risk.

Practical considerations in the selection of seed strength for prostate implants

There are advantages in using lower numbers of higher activity seeds for prostate seed implants. This work investigated the use of higher strength seeds for our manually optimized prostate implants. Following a planning study using a range of seeds strengths between 0.4 U and 0.7 U, a series of patients were implanted using seeds of strength ~ 0.7 U. Twenty consecutive patients were selected for this study; ten patients were implanted with 0.4 U seeds and the next ten patients implanted with 0.7 U seeds. Postimplant dosimetry for the target volume, urethra, and rectal wall was compared between the two groups. Our data showed a small and insignificant decrease in the total theatre time when implanting seeds of higher strength. The mean number of seeds required per implant decreased by over 30% for the 0.7 U implants, and the mean number of needles decreased by eight needles. The mean D90 (%) was marginally lower for the 0.7 U group, and spread over a wider range of values. Doses to the rectal wall were slightly higher for the 0.7 U group. At six years postimplant, the symptom scores for urinary and rectal toxicity and erectile function were similar to those reported before brachytherapy, with little differences between the 0.4 U and 0.7 U groups. Our experiences and practical advice in the selection of seed strength for prostate implants are reported in this paper.

Does location of prostate cancer by sextant biopsies predict for relapse after (125)I seed implant brachytherapy?

PURPOSE

To report on the importance of cancer location from diagnostic prostate biopsies in predicting biochemical relapse for patients treated with (125)I seed implant brachytherapy as monotherapy for favorable risk disease; specifically, to assess the clinical significance of potentially underdosing the base region of the prostate gland.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Of 1145 consecutive patients, 846 had pretreatment biopsies allowing for sextant analysis and consequent evaluation of biochemical failure tendencies. Biochemical failure was defined as a posttreatment rise in the nadir prostate-specific antigen (PSA) by at least 2 ng/mL. Patient and tumor characteristics, dosimetry, the use of hormone therapy, source strength, and postimplant PSA kinetics were analyzed between sextant subgroups.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients (7.3%) with sextant pathology had biochemical failure. There was no significant difference between the failure locations. There were 528 patients (62.4%) with some element of base involvement (BI), and 318 patients (37.6%) with no evidence of BI. Of the 62 patients with biochemical failure, 42 (67.7%) showed BI on biopsy and 20 (32.3%) had no BI. The 10-year relapse-free survival rate is 88.2% (95% confidence interval: 84.3%, 92.2%) and 92.0% (95% confidence interval: 88.4%, 95.8%) for the BI and no BI groups, respectively (p = 0.17). The mean D90 delivered to the base, midgland, and apex was 140.8 (±21.8) Gy, 170.8 (±22.5) Gy, and 177.9 (±29.5) Gy, respectively, for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no significantly worse outcomes for patients treated with an (125)I seed implant for favorable risk prostate cancer with some element of BI, despite lower doses of radiation delivered to the base region.