Association of Brachytherapy Boost with Overall Survival for Gleason 9-10 Prostate Cancer: The Impact of Primary versus Secondary Pattern 5

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.

The prognostic significance of the clinical T stage and Grade Group in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated via high-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation

BACKGROUND

Although the optimal management of locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unclear, local definitive therapy, thus combined radiotherapy and androgen deprivation, is one option. We evaluated the long-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced PCa who underwent high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 173 patients with locally advanced PCa (cT3a-4N0-1M0) who underwent HDR-BT and EBRT. We employed Cox's proportional hazards models to identify pre-treatment predictors of oncological outcomes. Treatment outcomes (biochemical recurrence-free survival [BCRFS], clinical progression-free survival [CPFS], and castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival [CRPCFS] were compared according to the combination of the pre-treatment predictors.

RESULTS

The 5-year BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS rates were 78.5, 91.7, and 94.4% respectively; there were two PCa deaths. Multivariate analysis revealed that the clinical T stage (cT3b and cT4) and Grade Group (GG) 5 status were independent risk factors for poor BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS. In the GG ≤ 4 group, the Kaplan-Meier curves for BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS revealed excellent outcomes. However, in the GG5 group, patients with cT3b and cT4 PCa evidenced significantly poorer oncological outcomes than those with cT3a PCa.

CONCLUSION

The clinical T stage and GG status were significantly prognostic of oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced PCa. In patients of GG ≤ 4 PCa, HDR-BT was effective even in patients with cT3b or cT4 PCa. However, in patients with GG5 PCa, careful monitoring is essential, particularly of patients with cT3b or cT4 PCa.