Medium-term oncological and functional outcomes of hemi-gland brachytherapy using iodine-125 seeds for intermediate-risk unilateral prostate cancer

Focal brachytherapy as definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we describe the oncologic and toxicity outcomes of definitive focal brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PROSPERO registered study (CRD42023410170) was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies between 2000 and 2022. Two authors independently performed the initial search. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) was defined as the primary endpoint for the meta-analysis. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were conducted to calculate effect size and quantify heterogeneity. We also describe the side effects and local recurrence patterns of focal brachytherapy.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified and included 315 patients treated using focal brachytherapy as a definitive treatment. Mean (SD) age was 67.65 (7.9) years and mean (SD) PSA was 7.15 (2.7) ng/mL. Most patients (n = 236, 75%) underwent LDR Brachytherapy and 25% received HDR brachytherapy. Among the participants, 147 (46.5%) had a Gleason score ≤6, and 169 (53.5%) had a Gleason score ≥7. Only 11 (3.5%) patients received ADT. Overall, bRFS rate at median follow-up 4 years (Range: 1-6.42 years) was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82-95%). Acute Grade ≤ 2 GU and GI toxicities were reported in 22 (7%) and 11 (3.5%) patients, respectively. Late Grade ≤ 2 GU and GI toxicity were reported in 6 (2%) and 14 (4.4%) patients, respectively. One case of prostate hemorrhage due to improper foley removal was noted but otherwise no acute or late Grade 3 or higher GI or GU toxicity related to radiotherapy was reported.

CONCLUSION

Overall, definitive focal brachytherapy has a favorable toxicity profile. Oncologic outcomes are yet to mature. The evidence is limited by the small number of studies with low patients' number, across study heterogeneity, and possibility of publication bias.

Oncological results and cancer control definition in focal therapy for Prostate Cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative to whole-gland treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer. Ten different FT modalities have been described in literature. However, FT is not yet recommended by the International Guidelines, due to the lack of robust data on Oncological Outcomes. The objective of our Narrative Review is to evaluate the oncological profile of the available FT modalities and to offer a comprehensive overview of the definitions of Cancer Control for FT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Literature search was performed on 21^st February 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole gland-treatments were excluded. All articles reporting oncological outcomes were included.

RESULTS

One-hundred-twenty-four studies, reporting data on more than 8000 patients treated with FT, were included. Overall, 40 papers were on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU), 24 on Focal Cryotherapy, 13 on Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation (FLA), 8 on Photo-Dynamic Therapy (PDT), 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation (bRFA), 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and 9 comparative papers. Overall, the Biochemical Recurrence (BCR) rate ranged from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 67.5% (HIFU); the Salvage treatment rate ranged from 1% (IRE) to 54% (HIFU) considering re-treatment with FT and from 0% (Focal Brachytherapy) to 66.7% considering standard Radical Treatments. There is no univocal definition of Cancer Control, however the "Phoenix criteria" for BCR were the most commonly used.

CONCLUSIONS

FT is a promising alternative treatment for localized prostate cancer in terms of Oncological Outcomes, however there is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of cancer control, the reporting of oncological outcomes and a lack of high-quality clinical trials. Solid comparative studies with standard treatments and an unambiguous consensus on how to describe Cancer Control in the field of Focal Therapy are needed.

Functional outcomes and safety of focal therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review on results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

INTRODUCTION

Focal therapy (FT) is a promising alternative with curative intent for Low- to Intermediate-risk localized Prostate Cancer (PCa), claiming better functional outcomes and safety profile than standard whole-gland treatments. Ten different FT modalities have been described in the literature. The objective of our narrative review is to evaluate the safety profile and functional outcomes of these different modalities and the current most used tools of assessment for those outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Literature search was performed on 21st February 2023 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). Articles reporting whole-gland treatments were excluded. All articles reporting functional outcomes were included.

RESULTS

One-hundred-seven studies, reporting data on 6933 patients, were included (26 on High Intensity Focal Ultrasound, 22 on Focal Cryotherapy, 14 on Irreversible Electroporation, 11 on Focal brachytherapy, 10 on Focal Laser Ablation, 8 on Photodynamic Therapy, 3 on Microwave ablation, 3 on Robotic Partial Prostatectomy, 2 on bipolar Radio Frequency Ablation, 1 on Prostatic Artery Embolization, and 7 studies comparing different FTs). Post-operative pad-free rate ranged between 92.3-100%. Greater heterogeneity exists considering the Change in Erectile Function, with Changing in Erectile function- rates ranging between 0-94.4% (Cryotherapy). The most used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were the International Prostate Symptom Score and the International Index of Erectile Function for incontinence/urinary function and potency, respectively. The most common reported complications were hematuria, infections, and urethral strictures, with rates widely ranging among different treatments. The Clavien-Dindo Classification was the most used (40/88 papers) to describe adverse events.

CONCLUSION

FT is a promising treatment for localized PCa, achieving excellent results in terms of safety and functional outcomes. There is a wide heterogeneity in the definition of PROMS and time of collection between studies. High quality comparative studies with standard treatments are needed to reinforce these findings.

Is hemi-gland focal LDR brachytherapy as effective as whole-gland treatment for unilateral prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

The Hemi-Ablative Prostate Brachytherapy (HAPpy) trial evaluated hemi-gland (HG) low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) as a focal approach to control unilateral localized prostate cancer and reduce treatment-related toxicity at 2-years postimplant. Herewith we present further outcomes with a minimum of 5 years post-implant follow-up.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Outcomes of 30 HG implants and 362 whole-gland (WG) brachytherapy controls were monitored with IPSS, urinary Quality-of-Life (QoLU), GI component of EORTC-PR25 (QoLB), and IIEF-5 instruments, and PSA values. The median (range) follow-up for HG and WG cases was 72 (60-96) months and 84 (24-144) months respectively.

RESULTS

The IPSS was significantly reduced in HG relative to WG patients and trends indicating improved bowel QoL and erectile function were observed. The mean of change in PSA from baseline to last follow-up was -5.6 and -6.5 in HG and WG respectively (p = 0.1). The mean time to nadir was 4.2 and 4.8 years in HG and WG respectively (p = 0.06). Over time PSA in HG patients mirrored the sustained decline observed in WG cases but levels were higher by an average 0.5 ng/ml over WG controls (p < 0.001). Treatment failure occurred in 2 (6.7%) HG patients and in 20 (5.5%) WG cases. Five-year relapse-free survival was 97% in both groups (p = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years postimplant HG LDR-PB was as effective as WG treatment for control of unilateral localized prostate cancer with moderate improvement in treatment-related symptoms. Importantly, PSA is a valuable marker to assess disease control in this form of focal therapy.

Focal brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: 5.7-year clinical outcomes and a pair-matched study with radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To report experience with focal brachytherapy (FB) and compare its clinical outcomes with those of radical prostatectomy (RP) in localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent low-dose-rate FB. Survival rates free from biochemical failure (BF), additional treatment (AT) including re-FB, and whole-gland or systemic salvage therapy (ST) were calculated and oncological risk factors were investigated. Patient-reported outcomes on genitourinary function were also assessed. Using propensity scoring, 51 pair-matched RP patients were selected. Oncological control, urinary continence, and ejaculation status after FB and RP were compared.

RESULTS

During a median 5.7-year follow-up, BF, AT, and ST occurred in 12 (24%), 10 (20%), and 4 FB patients (8%), respectively. 6 of 10 AT patients were managed with re-FB alone. In the RP cohort, 3 patients (6%) underwent ST. 5-year BF-free survival rate after FB was 79%. Compared to 5-year ST-free survival rate of 94% after RP, ST-free and AT-free survival rates after FB were 93% (P = 0.813) and 87% (P = 0.049), respectively. Multivariate analyses of FB-treated patients showed that time to PSA nadir was negatively associated with BF and AT (hazard ratio 0.84 and 0.83, respectively, P <0.001 for each). The difference in oncological outcomes between low- and intermediate-risk categories was not significant. At 2 years after FB and RP, pad-free continence rates were 100% and 81%, respectively (P = 0.001). Ejaculation was preserved in 67% and 0% of patients who had been capable of ejaculation at baseline, respectively (P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

In low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, FB-treated patients achieved superior genitourinary function compared to pair-matched RP patients. The need for ST was not substantially different between the 2 treatment cohorts. Over half of patients requiring AT could be managed by re-focal treatment rather than whole-gland ST. Early PSA nadir may predict poor oncological control after FB.