1
|
Nakai Y, Tanaka N, Asakawa I, Onishi K, Miyake M, Yamaki K, Fujimoto K. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir and experience of PSA bounce after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer predicts clinical failure. Brachytherapy 2024:S1538-4721(24)00395-7. [PMID: 39368902 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2024.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2023] [Revised: 07/18/2024] [Accepted: 09/03/2024] [Indexed: 10/07/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) threshold and PSA bounce are associated with oncological control after low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) alone or with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), considering serum testosterone levels. METHODS This study enrolled 944 prostate cancer patients treated at a single institution with LDR-BT alone or LDR-BT combined with EBRT, with or without ADT. The Fine-Gray hazard model was used to evaluate factors related to clinical failure, including experience of PSA bounce between baseline and 2, 4, or 7 years after LDR-BT and PSA value (0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 ng/mL) with normal testosterone levels at 2, 4, and 7 years after LDR-BT, respectively. RESULTS Patients with normal testosterone levels and a PSA of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL at 2, 4, and 7 years after LDR-BT had a significantly better clinical failure free rate (CFFR) than those with PSA levels >0.2 or >0.5 ng/mL or low testosterone levels. Multivariate analysis revealed that PSA <0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 ng/mL with normal testosterone levels at 2, 4, and 7 years and experience of PSA bounce between baseline and 2 or 4 years after LDR-BT were significantly related to better CFFR. CONCLUSIONS Patients with normal serum testosterone levels who reached PSA of <0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 ng/mL after LDR-BT, or those who experienced PSA bounce, showed better oncological control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasushi Nakai
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan; Department of Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan
| | - Nobumichi Tanaka
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan; Department of Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan.
| | - Isao Asakawa
- Department of Prostate Brachytherapy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan
| | - Kenta Onishi
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan
| | - Makito Miyake
- Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan
| | - Kaori Yamaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hudson JM, Loblaw A, McGuffin M, Chung HT, Tseng CL, Helou J, Cheung P, Szumacher E, Liu S, Zhang L, Deabreu A, Mamedov A, Morton G. Prostate high dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: Efficacy results from a randomized phase II clinical trial of one fraction of 19 Gy or two fractions of 13.5 Gy: A 9-year update. Radiother Oncol 2024; 198:110381. [PMID: 38879130 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2024] [Revised: 06/05/2024] [Accepted: 06/08/2024] [Indexed: 06/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE High dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a monotherapy is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, but the optimal dose and fractionation schedule remain unknown. We report on the efficacy of a randomized Phase II trial comparing HDR monotherapy delivered as 27 Gy in 2 fractions vs. 19 Gy in 1 fraction with a median follow-up of 9 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS Enrolled patients had low or intermediate-risk disease, <60 cc prostate volume and no androgen deprivation use. Patients were randomized to 27 Gy in 2 fractions delivered one week apart vs a single fraction of 19 Gy. RESULTS 170 patients were randomized: median age 65 years, median follow-up 107 months and median baseline PSA 6.35 ng/ml. NCCN risk categories comprised low (19 %), favourable (51 %), and unfavourable intermediate risk (30 %). The median PSA at 8 years was 0.08 ng/ml in the 2-fraction arm vs. 0.89 ng/ml in the single-fraction arm. The cumulative incidence of local failure at 8 years was 11.2 % in the 2-fraction arm vs. 35.9 % in the single-fraction arm (p < 0.001). The incidence of distant failure at 8 years was 3.8 % in the 2-fraction arm and 2.5 % in the single-fraction arm (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS HDR monotherapy delivered in two fractions of 13.5 Gy demonstrated a persistent cancer control rate at 8 years and was well-tolerated. Single-fraction monotherapy yielded poor oncologic control and is not recommended. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimal HDR monotherapy strategies for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John M Hudson
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Hans T Chung
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Joelle Helou
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Patrick Cheung
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Ewa Szumacher
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Stanley Liu
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Liying Zhang
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Gerard Morton
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vermassen T, Lumen N, Van Praet C, Callewaert N, Delanghe J, Rottey S. The Association between Urine N-Glycome and Prognosis after Initial Therapy for Primary Prostate Cancer. Biomedicines 2024; 12:1039. [PMID: 38791001 PMCID: PMC11118943 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12051039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2024] [Revised: 04/18/2024] [Accepted: 04/19/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Next to prostate-specific antigen, no biochemical biomarkers have been implemented to guide patient follow-up after primary therapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We evaluated the prognostic potential of urine N-glycome in terms of event-free survival (EFS) in patients undergoing primary therapy for PCa. The prognostic features of the urine N-glycosylation profile at diagnosis, assessed in 77 PCa patients, were determined in terms of EFS next to standard clinical parameters. The majority of patients were diagnosed with International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≤ 3 (82%) T1-2 tumors (79%) and without pelvic lymph node invasion (96%). The patients underwent active surveillance (14%), robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (48%), or external beam radiotherapy (37%). Decreased ratios of biantennary core-fucosylation were noted in patients who developed an event, which was linked to a shorter EFS in both the intention-to-treat cohort and all subcohort analyses. Combining the urine N-glycan biomarker with the D'Amico Risk Classification for PCa resulted in an improved nomogram for patient classification after primary therapy. The rate of urine N-glycan biantennary core-fucosylation, typically linked to more aggressive disease status, is lower in patients who eventually developed an event following primary therapy and subsequently in patients with a worse EFS. The combination of urine N-glycan biomarkers together with clinical parameters could, therefore, improve the post-therapy follow-up of patients with PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tijl Vermassen
- Department Medical Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Biomarkers in Cancer, Department Basic and Applied Medicine, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| | - Nicolaas Lumen
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Department Urology (ERN eUROGEN Accredited Centre), Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Uro-Oncology Research Group, Department Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| | - Charles Van Praet
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Department Urology (ERN eUROGEN Accredited Centre), Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Uro-Oncology Research Group, Department Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| | - Nico Callewaert
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Department Molecular Biomedical Research, VIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
- Department Biochemistry and Microbiology, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| | - Joris Delanghe
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Department Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| | - Sylvie Rottey
- Department Medical Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Biomarkers in Cancer, Department Basic and Applied Medicine, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Cancer Research Institute Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Drug Research Unit Ghent, Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Adams ES, Deivasigamani S, Mottaghi M, Huang J, Gupta RT, Polascik TJ. Evaluation of Recurrent Disease after Radiation Therapy for Patients Considering Local Salvage Therapy: Past vs. Contemporary Management. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5883. [PMID: 38136427 PMCID: PMC10741753 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15245883] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Recurrent prostate cancer after primary treatment with radiation therapy is a common problem. Patients with localized recurrence may benefit from salvage therapy, but careful patient selection is crucial because not all patients will benefit from local salvage therapy, and salvage therapy has increased morbidity compared to primary treatments for prostate cancer. This review aims to provide an overview of the evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy and how it is continuing to evolve with increasing data on outcomes, as well as improving technologies and techniques. Our enhanced understanding of treatment outcomes and risk stratification has influenced the identification of patients who may benefit from local salvage treatment. Advances in imaging and biopsy techniques have enhanced the accuracy of locating the recurrence, which affects treatment decisions. Additionally, the growing interest in image-targeted ablative therapies that have less morbidity and complications than whole-gland therapies for suitable patients influences the evaluation process for those considering focal salvage therapy. Although significant changes have been made in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy, it remains unclear whether these changes will ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric S. Adams
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | | | - Mahdi Mottaghi
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Jiaoti Huang
- Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Rajan T. Gupta
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Thomas J. Polascik
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Oh J, Tyldesley S, Pai H, McKenzie M, Halperin R, Duncan G, Morton G, Keyes M, Hamm J, Morris WJ. An Updated Analysis of the Survival Endpoints of ASCENDE-RT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:1061-1070. [PMID: 36528488 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Revised: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 11/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Using the primary endpoint of time to biochemical progression (TTP), Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (ASCENDE-RT) randomized National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer to low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-PB) or dose-escalated external beam boost (DE-EBRT). Randomization to the LDR-PB arm resulted in a 2-fold reduction in biochemical progression compared with the DE-EBRT group at a median follow-up of 6.5 years (P < .001). Herein, the primary endpoint and secondary survival endpoints of the ASCENDE-RT trial are updated at a 10-year median follow-up. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to either the LDR-PB or the DE-EBRT arm (1:1). All patients received 1 year of androgen deprivation therapy and 46 Gy in 23 fractions of pelvic RT. Patients in the DE-EBRT arm received an additional 32 Gy in 16 fractions, and those in the LDR-PB arm received an 125I implant prescribed to a minimum peripheral dose of 115 Gy. Two hundred patients were randomized to the DE-EBRT arm and 198 to the LDR-PB arm. RESULTS The 10-year Kaplan-Meier TTP estimate was 85% ± 5% for LDR-PB compared with 67% ± 7% for DE-EBRT (log rank P < .001). Ten-year time to distant metastasis (DM) was 88% ± 5% for the LDR-PB arm and 86% ± 6% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .56). There were 117 (29%) deaths. Ten-year overall survival (OS) estimates were 80% ± 6% for the LDR-PB arm and 75% ± 7% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .51). There were 30 (8%) patients who died of prostate cancer: 12 (6%) in the LDR-PB arm, including 2 treatment-related deaths, and 18 (9%) in the DE-EBRT arm. CONCLUSIONS Men randomized to the LDR-PB boost arm of the ASCENDE-RT trial continue to experience a large advantage in TTP compared with those randomized to the DE-EBRT arm. ASCENDE-RT was not powered to detect differences in its secondary survival endpoints (OS, DM, and time to prostate cancer-specific death) and none are apparent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Scott Tyldesley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
| | - Howard Pai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Michael McKenzie
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Ross Halperin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Kelowna, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Graeme Duncan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mira Keyes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jeremy Hamm
- Department of Population Oncology, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - W James Morris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|