Comparison of Different Fractionation Schedules Toward a Single Fraction in High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Using 3-Dimensional Radiobiological Models

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.

Feasibility of MRI targeted single fraction HDR brachytherapy for localized prostate carcinoma: ProFocAL-study

Purpose

A potential method for focal therapy in locally advanced prostate cancer is focal brachytherapy (F-BT). The purpose of this research was to evaluate midterm F-BT oncologic, functional, and toxicological results in men who had therapy for prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

Between 2016 and 2020, F-BT was used to treat 37 patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The recommended dosage was 20 Gy. Failure was defined as the existence of any prostate cancer that has persisted in-field after treatment. The F-BT oncologic and functional outcomes served as the main and secondary objectives, respectively.

Results

A median 20-month follow-up (range 14–48 months). 37 patients received F-BT and enrolled in the study; no patient experienced a biochemical recurrence in the first 24 months, according to Phoenix criteria. In the control biopsies, only 6 patients showed in-field failure. The median initial IPSS was 6.5, at 6 months was 6.0, and at 24 months was 5.0. When the median ICIQ-SF score was 0 at the baseline, it remained 0 at 6-, 12-, and 24 months. Overall survival and biochemical disease-free survival after 3 years were all at 100% and 86.4%, respectively. There was no notable acute gastro-intestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) adverse effects. No intraoperative or perioperative complications occurred.

Conclusions

For selected patients with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer, F-BT is a safe and effective therapy.

Patient and physician reported toxicity with two-fraction definitive high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: the impact of implant interval

Purpose

High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is an effective method of treating localized prostate cancer. There are limited data on the relationship between implant interval and outcomes. This study aims to assess if the implant interval between HDR treatments has an impact on patient-reported health-related quality of life (QOL) and physician-graded toxicity in men treated for localized prostate cancer.

Material and methods

Patients were treated with HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy with 27 Gy in 2 fractions, given over two implants, performed 1-2 weeks apart. Patients were dichotomized into one-week and two-week cohorts. Patient-reported EPIC-26 genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual QOL were assessed. Linear regression, chi-squared testing, and generalized linear mixed effect models were used to assess the differences in patient characteristics, patient-reported QOL, and physician-graded toxicity.

Results

Outcomes of 122 patients were analyzed. Median follow-up was 18 months. Patient-reported GU and GI QOL worsened after treatment with a return towards baseline over time, while patient-reported sexual QOL worsened after treatment, but did not return towards baseline. There were no differences in patient-reported health related QOL as a function of implant interval. Maximum physician-graded GU, GI, and sexual toxicity rates of grade 2 or 3 were 68%, 3%, and 53%, respectively. There was no difference in rates of grade 2 or 3 toxicity as a function of implants interval.

Conclusions

HDR brachytherapy for prostate cancer is a well-tolerated treatment. The interval between treatments is not associated with differences in patient-reported QOL or physician-graded toxicities.

A radiobiological study of the schemes with a low number of fractions in high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer

Purpose

Schemes with high doses per fraction and small number of fractions are commonly used in high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) for prostate cancer. Our aim was to analyze the differences between published clinical results and the predictions of radiobiological models for absorbed dose required in a single fraction monotherapy HDR-BT.

Material and methods

Published HDR-BT clinical results for low- and intermediate-risk patients with prostate cancer were revised. For 13 clinical studies with 16 fractionation schedules between 1 and 9 fractions, a dose-response relation in terms of the biochemical control probability (BC) was established using Monte Carlo-based statistical methods.

Results

We obtained a value of α/β = 22.8 Gy (15.1-60.2 Gy) (95% CI) much larger than the values in the range 1.5-3.0 Gy that are usually considered to compare the results of different fractionation schemes in prostate cancer radiotherapy using doses per fraction below 6 Gy. The doses in a single fraction producing BC = 90% and 95% were 22.3 Gy (21.5-24.2 Gy) and 24.3 Gy (23.0-27.9 Gy), respectively.

Conclusions

The α/β obtained in our analysis of 22.8 Gy for a range of dose per fraction between 6 and 20.5 Gy was much greater than the one currently estimated for prostate cancer using low doses per fraction. This high value of α/β explains reasonably well the data available in the region of high doses per fraction considered.

Investigating the role of constrained CVT and CVT in HIPO inverse planning for HDR brachytherapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of the centroidal Voronoi tessellation (CVT) and constrained CVT (CCVT) in inverse planning in combination with the Hybrid Inverse Planning Optimization (HIPO) algorithm in HDR brachytherapy of prostate cancer. HIPO implemented in Oncentra© Prostate treatment planning system, is used for three-dimensional (3D)-ultrasound-based intraoperative treatment planning in high dose rate brachytherapy. HIPO utilizes a hybrid iterative process to determine the most appropriate placement of a given number of catheters to fulfil predefined dose-volume constraints. The main goals of the current investigation were to identify a way of improving the performance of HIPO inverse planning; accelerating the HIPO, and to evaluate the effect of the two CVT-based initialization methods on the dose distribution in the sub-region of prostate that is not accessible by catheters, when trying to avoid perforation of urethra.

METHODS

We implemented the CVT algorithm to generate initial catheter configurations before the initialization of the HIPO algorithm. We introduced the CCVT algorithm to improve the dose distribution to the sub-volume of prostate within the bounding box of the urethra contours including its upper vertical extension (U-P). For the evaluation, we considered a total of 15 3D ultrasound-based HDRBT prostate implants. Execution time and treatment plan quality were evaluated based on the dose-volume histograms of prostate (PTV), its sub-volume U-P, and organs at risk (OARs). Furthermore, the conformity index COIN, the homogeneity index HI and the complication-free tumor control probability (P₊ ) were used for our treatment plan comparisons. Finally, the plans with the recommended HIPO execution mode were compared to the clinically used intraoperative pre-plans.

RESULTS

The plan quality achieved with CCVT-based HIPO initialization was superior to the default HIPO initialization method. Focusing on the U-P sub-region of the prostate, the CCVT method resulted in a significant improvement of all dosimetric indices compared to the default HIPO, when both were executed in the adaptive mode. For that recommended HIPO execution mode, and for U-P, CCVT demonstrated in general higher dosimetric indices than CVT. Additionally, the execution time of CCVT initialized HIPO was lower compared to both alternative initialization methods. This is also valid for the values of the aggregate objective function with the differences to the default initialization method being highly significant. Paired non-parametric statistical tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank) showed a significant improvement of dose-volume indices, COIN and P₊ for the plans generated by the CCVT-based catheter configuration initialization in HIPO compared to the default HIPO initialization process. Furthermore, in ten out of 15 cases, the CCVT-based HIPO plans fulfilled all the clinical dose-volume constraints in a single trial without any need for further catheter position adaption.

CONCLUSION

HIPO with CCVT-based initialization demonstrates better performance regarding the aggregate objective function and convergence when compared to the CVT-based and default catheter configuration initialization methods. This improved performance of HIPO inverse planning is clearly not at the cost of the dosimetric and radiobiologically evaluated plan quality. We recommend the use of the CCVT method for HIPO initialization especially in the adaptive planning mode.

A Phase 2 Randomized Pilot Study Comparing High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose

To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) versus low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for localized prostate cancer in a multi-institutional phase 2 randomized trial.

Methods and Materials

Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB to 144 Gy or single-fraction Iridium-192 HDRB to 19 Gy. HRQOL and urinary toxicity were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 scoring and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Independent samples t test and mixed effects modeling were performed for continuous variables. Time to IPSS resolution, defined as return to its baseline score ±5 points, was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimator curves with the log-rank test. A multiple-comparison adjusted P value of ≤.05 was considered significant.

Results

LDRB and HDRB were performed in 15 and 16 patients, respectively, for a total of 31 patients. At 3 months, patients treated with LDRB had a higher IPSS score (mean, 15.5 vs 6.0, respectively; P = .003) and lower EPIC urinary irritative score (mean, 69.2 vs 85.3, respectively; P = .037) compared with those who received HDRB. On repeated measures at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, the IPSS (P = .003) and EPIC urinary irritative scores (P = .019) were significantly better in the HDR arm, translating into a lower urinary toxicity profile. There were no significant differences in the EPIC urinary incontinence, sexual, or bowel habit scores between the 2 groups at any measured time point. Time to IPSS resolution was significantly shorter in the HDRB group (mean, 2.0 months) compared with the LDRB group (mean, 6.0 months; P = .028).

Conclusions

HDRB monotherapy is a promising modality associated with a lower urinary toxicity profile and higher HRQOL in the first 12 months compared with LDRB.

The alfa and beta of tumours: a review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies

BACKGROUND

Prediction of radiobiological response is a major challenge in radiotherapy. Of several radiobiological models, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been best validated by experimental and clinical data. Clinically, the LQ model is mainly used to estimate equivalent radiotherapy schedules (e.g. calculate the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions, EQD₂), but increasingly also to predict tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using logistic models. The selection of accurate LQ parameters α, β and α/β is pivotal for a reliable estimate of radiation response. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of published values for the LQ parameters of human tumours as a guideline for radiation oncologists and radiation researchers to select appropriate radiobiological parameter values for LQ modelling in clinical radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a systematic literature search and found sixty-four clinical studies reporting α, β and α/β for tumours. Tumour site, histology, stage, number of patients, type of LQ model, radiation type, TCP model, clinical endpoint and radiobiological parameter estimates were extracted. Next, we stratified by tumour site and by tumour histology. Study heterogeneity was expressed by the I² statistic, i.e. the percentage of variance in reported values not explained by chance.

RESULTS

A large heterogeneity in LQ parameters was found within and between studies (I² > 75%). For the same tumour site, differences in histology partially explain differences in the LQ parameters: epithelial tumours have higher α/β values than adenocarcinomas. For tumour sites with different histologies, such as in oesophageal cancer, the α/β estimates correlate well with histology. However, many other factors contribute to the study heterogeneity of LQ parameters, e.g. tumour stage, type of LQ model, TCP model and clinical endpoint (i.e. survival, tumour control and biochemical control).

CONCLUSIONS

The value of LQ parameters for tumours as published in clinical radiotherapy studies depends on many clinical and methodological factors. Therefore, for clinical use of the LQ model, LQ parameters for tumour should be selected carefully, based on tumour site, histology and the applied LQ model. To account for uncertainties in LQ parameter estimates, exploring a range of values is recommended.

The alfa and beta of tumours: a review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies

Background

Prediction of radiobiological response is a major challenge in radiotherapy. Of several radiobiological models, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been best validated by experimental and clinical data. Clinically, the LQ model is mainly used to estimate equivalent radiotherapy schedules (e.g. calculate the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions, EQD₂), but increasingly also to predict tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using logistic models. The selection of accurate LQ parameters α, β and α/β is pivotal for a reliable estimate of radiation response. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of published values for the LQ parameters of human tumours as a guideline for radiation oncologists and radiation researchers to select appropriate radiobiological parameter values for LQ modelling in clinical radiotherapy.

Methods and materials

We performed a systematic literature search and found sixty-four clinical studies reporting α, β and α/β for tumours. Tumour site, histology, stage, number of patients, type of LQ model, radiation type, TCP model, clinical endpoint and radiobiological parameter estimates were extracted. Next, we stratified by tumour site and by tumour histology. Study heterogeneity was expressed by the I² statistic, i.e. the percentage of variance in reported values not explained by chance.

Results

A large heterogeneity in LQ parameters was found within and between studies (I² > 75%). For the same tumour site, differences in histology partially explain differences in the LQ parameters: epithelial tumours have higher α/β values than adenocarcinomas. For tumour sites with different histologies, such as in oesophageal cancer, the α/β estimates correlate well with histology. However, many other factors contribute to the study heterogeneity of LQ parameters, e.g. tumour stage, type of LQ model, TCP model and clinical endpoint (i.e. survival, tumour control and biochemical control).

Conclusions

The value of LQ parameters for tumours as published in clinical radiotherapy studies depends on many clinical and methodological factors. Therefore, for clinical use of the LQ model, LQ parameters for tumour should be selected carefully, based on tumour site, histology and the applied LQ model. To account for uncertainties in LQ parameter estimates, exploring a range of values is recommended.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-1040-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Single fraction multimodal image guided focal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We present a novel method for treatment of locally recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) following radiation therapy: focal, multimodal image guided high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We treated two patients with recurrent PCa after primary (#1) or adjuvant (#2) external beam radiation therapy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), choline, positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET/CT), or prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET combined with CT identified a single intraprostatic lesion. Positron emission tomography or magnetic resonance imaging - transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion guided transperineal biopsy confirmed PCa within each target lesion. We defined a PET and mpMRI based gross tumor volume (GTV). A 5 mm isotropic margin was applied additionally to each lesion to generate a planning target volume (PTV), which accounts for technical fusion inaccuracies. A D90 of 18 Gy was intended in one fraction to each PTV using ultrasound guided HDR brachytherapy.

RESULTS

Six month follow-up showed adequate prostate specific antygen (PSA) decline in both patients (ΔPSA 83% in patient 1 and ΔPSA 59.3% in patient 2). Follow-up 3-tesla MRI revealed regressive disease in both patients and PSMA-PET/CT showed no evidence of active disease in patient #1. No acute or late toxicities occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Single fraction, focal, multimodal image guided salvage HDR brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer is a feasible therapy for selected patients with single lesions. This approach has to be evaluated in larger clinical trials.

Fractionated high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy in prostate cancer: Does implant displacement and its correction influence acute and late toxicity?

PURPOSE

In fractionated high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) for prostate cancer (PCa) with one implant for several fractions, dose delivery relies on reproducibility of catheter positions. However, caudal displacement of implanted catheters does occur between fractions and needs to be corrected. Our protocol prescribes correction of displacements > 3 mm. We investigated whether displacement and its corrections influence acute and late toxicity incidences.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We analyzed 162 PCa patients treated with HDR-BT monotherapy between 2007 and 2013. The implant remained in situ between the 4 fractions. Catheter displacement was assessed before each fraction using lateral X-ray images and corrected if needed. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) acute and late toxicities were assessed using clinical record forms and patient self-assessment questionnaires.

RESULTS

Implant displacement corrections (DC) were needed in 71 patients (43.8%) whereas no DCs were needed in 91 patients (56.2%). No statistically significant differences were seen in acute and late grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity incidences between DC and no DC groups. The maximum displacement nor the number of corrections had any influence on toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence and subsequent correction of implant displacements exceeding 3 mm during fractionated HDR-BT monotherapy for PCa did not lead to increased incidences of acute or late GU and GI toxicity. This indicates that our clinical protocol to correct displacements > 3 mm results in safe treatment regarding organ at risk toxicity.