Randomised trial of external-beam radiotherapy alone or with high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Mature 12-year results

Single-dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy versus two and three fractions for locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy (SD-HDR-BT) was compared to two or three fraction HDR BT in intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer with median follow-up of 10 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

293 patients received 1 × 19Gy or 1 × 20Gy (Group A = 49), 2 × 13Gy (Group B = 138), or 3 × 10.5 Gy (Group C = 106) HDR BT. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free interval (bRFI). Late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity used RTOG scales and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Freedom from biochemical relapse (bRFI), overall survival (OS) and GU, GI and IPSS morbidity were calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method and log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate hazard ratios (HR) were obtained using Cox's proportional hazard.

RESULTS

At 10 years, K-M estimates of bRFI were 64 % (Group A), 72 % (Group B), and 76 % (Group C) (p = 0.2). No statistically significant difference was seen in OS. In multivariate analysis risk-category and ADT administration, but not dose, were significant predictors of relapse (p = 0.0003 and 0.03, respectively). At ten years, GU grade 3 events were 8 % (A), 2 % (B) and 13 % (C); (p = 0.01). IPSS ≥ 20 was 31 % (A), 20 % (B) and 23 % (C); (p = 0.6) and grade 3 GI was 0 % in groups A and B and 2 % in C; (p = 0.3). No GU or GI grade-4 events were observed. Pre-treatment IPSS was a highly significant predictor of failure in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcome data show reduced but not statistically significant difference in PSA control, and no difference in overall survival, between SD-HDR-BT and 2 or 3 fractions of HDR-BT.

Prostate Virtual High-dose-rate Brachytherapy Boost: 5-Year Results from the PROMETHEUS Prospective Multicentre Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Despite the high efficacy of high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDRB) in the management of prostate cancer (PC), use of this approach is declining. Similar dosimetry can be achieved using stereotactic body radiotherapy or "virtual HDRB" (vHDRB). The aim of the multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 PROMETHEUS trial (ACTRN12615000223538) was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vHDRB in patients with PC.

METHODS

Patients with intermediate-risk PC or selected patients with high-risk PC were eligible for inclusion. vHDRB was given as 19-20 Gy in two fractions, delivered 1 wk apart, followed by conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at 46 Gy in 23 fractions or 36 Gy in 12 fractions. The primary endpoint was the biochemical/clinical relapse-free rate (bcRFR). Toxicity was graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 and quality of life (QoL) data were collected used the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 questionnaire.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

From March 2014 to December 2018, 151 patients (74% intermediate risk, 26% high risk) with a median age of 69 yr were treated across five centres. Median follow-up was 60 mo. The 5-yr bcRFR was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90-98%) and the local control rate was 98.7%. Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurred in 6.6% and 23.2% of patients, respectively, with no acute grade 3 toxicity. At 60 mo after treatment, the prevalence of late grade ≥2 GI toxicity was 1.7% (95% CI 0.3-6.5%) and the prevalence of late grade ≥2 GU toxicity was 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-8.8%). Between baseline and 60 mo, QoL improved for urinary obstructive and hormonal domains, was stable for the bowel domain, and deteriorated slightly for the sexual and urinary incontinence domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of gantry-based vHDRB followed by conventionally fractionated EBRT is feasible in a multicentre setting, with high 5-yr bcRFR and low toxicity. This approach is being compared with prostate ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy in the TROG 18.01 NINJA randomised trial (ACTRN12618001806257).

PATIENT SUMMARY

The PROMETHEUS trial investigated noninvasive high-dose precision radiotherapy combined with conventional radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer. We found that this new technique was well tolerated and resulted in better cancer control outcomes than historically reported.

Overall Survival and Cancer-Specific Mortality in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Definitive Therapies: A Narrative Review

The overall survival (OS) of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who receive locally definitive therapy is generally better than that of patients who do not receive definitive therapy. There is no difference in the incidence of local recurrence or distant metastasis between treatment modalities. Because the prognosis of PCa is relatively good, many studies have focused on quality of life after treatment as an endpoint. However, a limited number of patients develop biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment for PCa and subsequently develop distant metastasis or die from PCa. Therefore, we believe that preventing local recurrence and distant metastasis and prolonging the OS should be emphasized when selecting a treatment modality for PCa. In this review, the significance and usefulness of radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy as the main modalities of definitive therapies for local PCa and locally advanced PCa were evaluated, as well as the outcomes of OS and PCa-specific mortality and the treatment options after biochemical recurrence to improve the oncological outcomes.

169Yb-based high dose rate intensity modulated brachytherapy for focal treatment of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

This study compares conventional 192Ir-based high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) with 169Yb-based HDR intensity modulated brachytherapy (IMBT) for focal prostate cancer treatment. Additionally, the study explores the potential to generate less invasive treatment plans with IMBT by reducing the number of catheters needed to achieve acceptable outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A retrospective dosimetric study of ten prostate cancer patients initially treated with conventional 192Ir-based HDR-BT and 5-14 catheters was employed. RapidBrachyMCTPS, a Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system was used to calculate and optimize dose distributions. For 169Yb-based HDR IMBT, a custom 169Yb source combined with 0.8 mm thick platinum shields placed inside 6F catheters was used. Furthermore, dose distributions were investigated when iteratively removing catheters for less invasive treatments.

RESULTS

With IMBT, the urethra D10 and D0.1cc decreased on average by 15.89 and 15.65 percentage points (pp) and the rectum V75 and D2cc by 1.53 and 11.54 pp, respectively, compared to the conventional clinical plans. Similar trends were observed when the number of catheters decreased. On average, there was an observed increase in PTV V150 from 2.84 pp with IMBT when utilizing all catheters to 8.83 pp when four catheters were removed. PTV V200 increased from 0.42 to 2.96 pp on average. Hotspots in the body were however lower with IMBT compared to conventional clinical plans.

CONCLUSIONS

169Yb-based HDR IMBT for focal treatment of prostate cancer has the potential to successfully deliver clinically acceptable, less invasive treatment with reduced dose to organs at risk.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Quality of Life After Low-Dose Rate or High-Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy Boost With Pelvic External Beam Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

To compare health-related quality of life (QoL) in urinary, bowel, and sexual domains after combined external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and either low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eligible men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined pelvic EBRT and BT were randomly assigned to either HDR (15 Gy) or LDR (110 Gy) boost. International Prostate Symptom Score, Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite were collected at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, every 6 months to 3 years and then annually along with prostate-specific antigen/testosterone. Fisher's exact test compared categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) domain scores.

RESULTS

From January 2014 to December 2019, a random number generator assigned 195 men: 108 to HDR and 87 to LDR. Median age was 71 years. Risk group was high in 57% and unfavorable intermediate in 43%. Androgen deprivation (used in 74%) began with 3 months neoadjuvant and continued for median 12 months. Baseline EPIC scores were similar for the LDR/HDR cohorts: 89 and 88 respectively for Genito-urinary; 92 and 93 for Gastro-intestinal. EPIC urinary scores decreased at 1 month for HDR but recovered promptly to a steady state by 6 months. LDR scores reached a nadir at 3 months with slow recovery to 18 months, after which urinary QoL was similar for HDR and LDR. Bowel QOL scores fell in both cohorts reaching respective nadirs at 12 months. HDR patients recovered close to baseline and maintained higher scores than LDR patients to 5 years. The decline for LDR patients remained more than the minimum clinically important difference out to 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient experience for combined EBRT and prostate BT is improved with HDR BT. Urinary QoL improves over time to be equivalent between the 2 modalities after 18 months, but LDR patients report lasting bowel symptoms.

The expanding role of radiation oncology across the prostate cancer continuum

Radiotherapy is used in the treatment of prostate cancer in a variety of disease states with significant reliance on imaging to guide clinical decision-making and radiation delivery. In the definitive setting, the choice of radiotherapy treatment modality, dose, and fractionation for localized prostate cancer is determined by the patient's initial risk stratification and other clinical considerations. Radiation is also an option as salvage therapy in patients with locoregionally recurrent disease after prior definitive radiation or surgery. In recent years, the role of radiation has expanded for patients with metastatic disease, including prostate-directed radiotherapy in de novo low volume metastatic disease, metastasis-directed therapy for oligorecurrent disease, and palliative management of symptomatic metastases in the advanced setting. Here we review the expanding role of radiation in the treatment of prostate cancer in the definitive, locoregionally recurrent, and metastatic settings, as well as highlight the role of imaging in clinical reasoning, radiation planning, and treatment delivery.

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.

Is Ultrahypofractionated Whole Pelvis Radiation Therapy (WPRT) as Well Tolerated as Conventionally Fractionated WPRT in Patients With Prostate Cancer? Early Results From the HOPE Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to evaluate the acute toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) impact of ultrahypofractionated whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) compared with conventional WPRT fractionation after high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (HDR-BT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The HOPE trial is a phase 2, multi-institutional randomized controlled trial of men with prostate-confined disease and National Comprehensive Cancer Network unfavorable intermediate-, high-, or very-high-risk prostate cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive conventionally fractionated WPRT (standard arm) or ultrahypofractionated WPRT (experimental arm) in a 1:1 ratio. All patients underwent radiation therapy with 15 Gy HDR-BT boost in a single fraction followed by WPRT delivered with conventional fractionation (45 Gy in 25 daily fractions or 46 Gy in 23 fractions) or ultrahypofractionation (25 Gy in 5 fractions delivered on alternate days). Acute toxicities measured during radiation therapy and at 6 weeks posttreatment were assessed using the clinician-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, and QOL was measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS).

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were enrolled and treated across 3 Canadian institutions, of whom 39 and 41 patients received external radiation therapy with conventionally fractionated and ultrahypofractionated WPRT, respectively. All patients received androgen deprivation therapy except for 2 patients treated in the ultrahypofractionated arm. The baseline clinical characteristics of the 2 arms were similar, with 51 (63.8%) patients having high or very-high-risk prostate cancer disease. Treatment was well tolerated with no significant differences in the rate of acute adverse events between arms. No grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported. Ultrahypofractionated WPRT had a less detrimental impact on the EPIC-50 bowel total, function, and bother domain scores compared with conventional WPRT in the acute setting. By contrast, more patients treated with ultrahypofractionated WPRT reached the minimum clinical important difference on the EPIC-50 urinary domains. No significant QOL differences between arms were noted in the sexual and hormonal domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrahypofractionated WPRT after HDR-BT is a well-tolerated treatment strategy in the acute setting that has less detrimental impact on bowel QOL domains compared with conventional WPRT.

Biochemical control in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer after EBRT with and without brachytherapy boost

PURPOSE

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy boost (BTB) has not been compared in prospective studies using guideline-recommended radiation dose and recommended androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we compared modern-day EBRT with BTB in terms of biochemical control (BC) for intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients were treated for primary IR or HR prostate cancer during 1999-2019 at three high-volume centers. Inclusion criteria were prescribed ≥ 76 Gy EQD2 (α/β = 1.5 Gy) for IR and ≥ 78 Gy EQD2 (α/β = 1.5 Gy) for HR as EBRT alone or with BTB. All HR patients received ADT and pelvic irradiation, which were optional in IR cases. BC between therapies was compared in survival analyses.

RESULTS

Of 2769 initial patients, 1176 met inclusion criteria: 468 HR (260 EBRT, 208 BTB) and 708 IR (539 EBRT, 169 BTB). Median follow-up was 49 and 51 months for HR and IR, respectively. BTB patients with ≥ 113 Gy EQD2Gy experienced a stable, good BC outcome compared with BTB at lower doses. Patients treated with ≥ 113 Gy EQD2Gy also experienced significantly improved BC compared with EBRT (10-year BC failure rates after ≥ 113 Gy BTB and EBRT: respectively 20.4 and 41.8% for HR and 7.5 and 20.8% for IR).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with IR and HR prostate cancer, BTB with ≥ 113 Gy EQD2Gy offered a BC advantage compared with dose-escalated EBRT and lower BTB doses.

Spatial Distribution of Recurrence and Long-Term Toxicity Following Dose Escalation to the Dominant Intra-Prostatic Nodule for Intermediate-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Insights from a Phase I/II Study

Objectives: We investigated spatial patterns between primary and recurrent tumor sites and assessed long-term toxicity after dose escalation stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the dominant intra-prostatic nodule (DIN). Materials and methods: In 33 patients with intermediate-high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), doses up to 50 Gy were administered to the DIN. Recurrence sites were determined and compared to the original tumor development sites through multiparametric MRI and 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT) images. Overlap rates, categorized as 75% or higher for full overlap, and 25-74% for partial overlap, were assessed. Long-term toxicity is reported. Results: All patients completed treatment, with only one receiving concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Recurrences were diagnosed after a median of 33 months (range: 17-76 months), affecting 13 out of 33 patients (39.4%). Intra-prostatic recurrences occurred in 7 patients (21%), with ≥75% overlap in two, a partial overlap in another two, and no overlap in the remaining three patients. Notably, five patients with intra-prostatic recurrences had synchronous bone and/or lymph node metastases, while six patients had isolated bone or lymph node metastasis without intra-prostatic recurrences. Extended follow-up revealed late grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity in 18% (n = 6) and 6% (n = 2) of the patients. Conclusions: Among patients with intermediate-high-risk PCa undergoing focal dose-escalated SBRT without ADT, DIN recurrences were infrequent. When present, these recurrences were typically located at the original site or adjacent to the initial tumor. Conversely, relapses beyond the DIN and in extra-prostatic (metastatic) sites were prevalent, underscoring the significance of systemic ADT in managing this patient population. Advances in knowledge: Focal dose-escalated prostate SBRT prevented recurrences in the dominant nodule; however, extra-prostatic recurrence sites were frequent.

Penalty weight tuning in high dose rate brachytherapy using multi-objective Bayesian optimization

Objective.Treatment plan optimization in high dose rate brachytherapy often requires manual fine-tuning of penalty weights for each objective, which can be time-consuming and dependent on the planner's experience. To automate this process, this study used a multi-criteria approach called multi-objective Bayesian optimization with q-noisy expected hypervolume improvement as its acquisition function (MOBO-qNEHVI).Approach.The treatment plans of 13 prostate cancer patients were retrospectively imported to a research treatment planning system, RapidBrachyMTPS, where fast mixed integer optimization (FMIO) performs dwell time optimization given a set of penalty weights to deliver 15 Gy to the target volume. MOBO-qNEHVI was used to find patient-specific Pareto optimal penalty weight vectors that yield clinically acceptable dose volume histogram metrics. The relationship between the number of MOBO-qNEHVI iterations and the number of clinically acceptable plans per patient (acceptance rate) was investigated. The performance time was obtained for various parameter configurations.Main results.MOBO-qNEHVI found clinically acceptable treatment plans for all patients. With increasing the number of MOBO-qNEHVI iterations, the acceptance rate grew logarithmically while the performance time grew exponentially. Fixing the penalty weight of the tumour volume to maximum value, adding the target dose as a parameter, initiating MOBO-qNEHVI with 25 parallel sampling of FMIO, and running 6 MOBO-qNEHVI iterations found solutions that delivered 15 Gy to the hottest 95% of the clinical target volume while respecting the dose constraints to the organs at risk. The average acceptance rate for each patient was 89.74% ± 8.11%, and performance time was 66.6 ± 12.6 s. The initiation took 22.47 ± 7.57 s, and each iteration took 7.35 ± 2.45 s to find one Pareto solution.Significance.MOBO-qNEHVI combined with FMIO can automatically explore the trade-offs between treatment plan objectives in a patient specific manner within a minute. This approach can reduce the dependency of plan quality on planner's experience and reduce dose to the organs at risk.

Timing of High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy With External Beam Radiation Therapy in Patients With Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer and Its Effects on Toxicity and Quality of Life: A Randomized Controlled Trial (THEPCA)

PURPOSE

High-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) are effective treatments for prostate cancer but cause genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities. There is no consensus on the timing of HDR-BT in relation to EBRT and the effect of sequencing on patients. The primary objective was to assess differences, if any, in the incidence of grade (G) 3 or higher GU toxicities from treatment. We also aimed to explore the incidence of G1 to G4 GI toxicities, quality of life (QOL), and patient satisfaction. Suppression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and signals for survival differences were also analyzed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This was a single-center randomized trial in patients with intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer who received HDR-BT before (Arm A) or after (Arm B) EBRT. Toxicities were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was used to assess lower urinary tract symptoms. The International Index of Erectile Function scale (IIEF) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) were used to assess erectile dysfunction and QOL at 0, 3, 9, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were recruited to each arm, with 48 and 46 patients completing treatment and follow-up in each arm, 81.5% of whom had high-risk disease. There were no G3 or G4 GU or GI toxicities. G1 urinary frequency was the most common adverse event experienced in both arms, peaking in incidence 3 months after treatment commenced (45.7% and 42.2% in Arm A and B, respectively). Up to 11% of patients reported G1 urinary frequency at 12 months. Other G1 GU toxicities experienced by >10% of patients were urinary tract obstruction, tract pain, and urgency. These symptoms also peaked in incidence at 3 months. G2 GU toxicities were uncommon and experienced in a maximum of 2 patients within each arm at any time point. Over 30% of patients had G1 flatulence at baseline, and this remained the most frequently occurring G1 GI toxicity throughout the study, peaking at 12 months (21.4% and 25.6% in Arm A and B, respectively). Other GI toxicities experienced by more than 10% of patients were GI pain, proctitis, and rectal mucositis, most of which demonstrated a peak incidence at 3 or 9 months. G2 GI toxicities were uncommon except for G2 flatulence. No significant difference was found in CTCAE, IPSS, IIEF, FACT-P, and QOL scores between the arms. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) follow-up was 5 years. Seven patients had treatment failure in each arm. Disease Free Survival (DFS) was 93.3% and 90.7% at 5 years in Arm A and B, respectively, with median failure time of 60 and 48 months in Arm A and B, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequencing of HDR-BT and EBRT did not affect the incidence of G3 or G4 toxicities, and no significant differences were seen in other patient-reported outcomes. Treatment was well tolerated with maintained QOL scores. Treatment failure was low in both arms in a high-risk cohort; however, a larger study with longer follow-up is underway to establish whether the difference in median time to failure between the 2 arms is a signal of superiority.

Development of patient and catheter specific error thresholds for high dose rate prostate brachytherapy

BACKGROUND

In-vivo source tracking has been an active topic of research in the field of high-dose rate brachytherapy in recent years to verify accuracy in treatment delivery. Although detection systems for source tracking are being developed, the allowable threshold of treatment error is still unknown and is likely patient-specific due to anatomy and planning variation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine patient and catheter-specific shift error thresholds for in-vivo source tracking during high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (HDRPBT).

METHODS

A module was developed in the previously described graphical processor unit multi-criteria optimization (gMCO) algorithm. The module generates systematic catheter shift errors retrospectively into HDRPBT treatment plans, performed on 50 patients. The catheter shift model iterates through the number of catheters shifted in the plan (from 1 to all catheters), the direction of shift (superior, inferior, medial, lateral, cranial, and caudal), and the magnitude of catheter shift (1-6 mm). For each combination of these parameters, 200 error plans were generated, randomly selecting the catheters in the plan to shift. After shifts were applied, dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters were re-calculated. Catheter shift thresholds were then derived based on plans where DVH parameters were clinically unacceptable (prostate V100 < 95%, urethra D0.1cc > 118%, and rectum Dmax > 80%). Catheter thresholds were also Pearson correlated to catheter robustness values.

RESULTS

Patient-specific thresholds varied between 1 to 6 mm for all organs, in all shift directions. Overall, patient-specific thresholds typically decrease with an increasing number of catheters shifted. Anterior and inferior directions were less sensitive than other directions. Pearson's correlation test showed a strong correlation between catheter robustness and catheter thresholds for the rectum and urethra, with correlation values of -0.81 and -0.74, respectively (p < 0.01), but no correlation was found for the prostate.

CONCLUSIONS

It was possible to determine thresholds for each patient, with thresholds showing dependence on shift direction, and number of catheters shifted. Not every catheter combination is explorable, however, this study shows the feasibility to determine patient-specific thresholds for clinical application. The correlation of patient-specific thresholds with the equivalent robustness value indicated the need for robustness consideration during plan optimization and treatment planning.

Trimodality Therapy With Iodine-125 Brachytherapy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, and Short- or Long-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Multicenter, Randomized Phase 3 Trial (TRIP/TRIGU0907)

PURPOSE

This phase 3 randomized investigation was designed to determine whether 30 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was superior to 6 months of ADT when combined with brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for localized high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study was conducted at 37 hospitals on men aged 40 to 79 years, with stage T2c-3a, prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score >7, who received 6 months of ADT combined with iodine-125 brachytherapy followed by EBRT. After stratification, patients were randomly assigned to either no further treatment (short arm) or 24 months of adjuvant ADT (long arm). According to the Phoenix definition of failure, the primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of biochemical progression. Secondary endpoints included clinical progression, metastasis, salvage treatment, disease-specific mortality, overall survival, and grade 3+ adverse events. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using survival estimates determined using competing risk analyses.

RESULTS

Of 332 patients, 165 and 167 were randomly assigned to the short and long arms, respectively. The median follow-up period was 9.2 years. The cumulative incidence of biochemical progression at 7 years was 9.0% (95% CI, 5.5-14.5) and 8.0% (4.7-13.5) in the short and long arms, respectively (P = .65). The outcomes of secondary endpoints did not differ significantly between the arms. Incidence rates of endocrine- and radiation-related grade 3+ adverse events for the short versus long arms were 0.6 versus 1.8% (P = .62) and 1.2 versus 0.6% (P = .62), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatment arms showed similar efficacy among selected populations with high-risk features. The toxicity of the trimodal therapy was acceptable. The present investigation, designed as a superiority trial, failed to demonstrate that 30-month ADT yielded better biochemical control than 6-month ADT when combined with brachytherapy and EBRT. Therefore, a noninferiority study is warranted to obtain further evidence supporting these preliminary results.

Brachyterapy: The radiation oncologist opinion

The role of the radiation oncologist in the management of patients affected by prostate cancer is increasingly considered thanks to important technological innovations that have marked the radiotherapeutic approach in its three main fields: external beam radiotherapy (EB-RT), brachytherapy (interventional radiotherapy, I-RT), and metabolic radiotherapy (M-RT) through the use of new radiopharmaceuticals. Regarding the modern brachytherapy, the introduction of intensity-modulated techniques (IM-IRT), thanks to the implementation of HDR remote-after loading machines, and image-guided techniques (IG-IRT), has led to advantages in optimizing dose distribution after implantation with the possibility of modulating the dose according to the intraprostatic dominant lesions, limiting the dose to the surrounding tissues with improvement in local control and a significant reduction in side effects. I-RT today represents a safe, scientifically established, effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients affected by prostate cancer. Like most special techniques, in order to obtain the best results, it must be performed in centers with a high volume of activity and consolidated experience with an interdisciplinary approach.

Approach to Patients with High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Radiation Oncology Perspective

OPINION STATEMENT

High-risk localized prostate cancer is a challenging clinical entity to treat, with heterogeneous responses to an evolving array of multidisciplinary treatment approaches. In addition, this disease state is growing in incidence due to a variety of factors, including shifting recommendations that discouraged routine prostate cancer screening. Current guidelines now incorporate an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening and evaluation. More work is underway to improve targeted screening for certain at-risk populations and to implement greater personalization in the use of diagnostic tools. Once diagnosed with high-risk localized disease, a multimodality treatment paradigm is warranted. Radiation-in its various forms and combinations-plays a large and continually evolving role in the management of high-risk prostate cancer, yet treatment outcomes are still suboptimal. There is a growing need to improve upon current treatment approaches, and better personalize a particular treatment recommendation based on both tumor and patient characteristics, as well as patient preference and goals of therapy. Given that treatment generally requires more than one therapy, there are notable implications on long-term quality of life, especially with respect to overlapping and cumulative side effects of local and systemic therapies, respectively. The desire for aggressive therapy to optimize cancer control outcomes must be weighed against the risk of morbidities and overtreatment and discussed with each patient so that an informed decision about treatment and care can be determined. High-level evidence to support treatment recommendations, where available, is critical for a data-driven and tailored approach to address all goals of care.

Prospective study of HDR brachytherapy (BT), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT): 10-years experience of an MRI-guided approach

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the predictive factors for biochemical failure and distant metastases in a prospective cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with the combination of HDR BT and EBRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with intermediate (IR) or high-risk (HR) prostate adenocarcinoma received a single fraction of HDR of 15 Gy combined with RT of 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions. ADT duration was used depending on risk-group. Descriptive analyses were performed. Univariate and multivariate Hazard Ratios were obtained. Finally, the Kaplan-Meier model was used to describe the survival of the events of interest.

RESULTS

309 patients were treated prospectively (199 were IR and 110 HR). Median age was 72 years; 58.3 % were MRI stage ≤ T2c, 34.1 % T3a and 7.6 % T3b; ISUP-grade 1-3 in 78.9 % and ISUP 4-5 in 21.1 %. 71.8 % of patients had ≤ 50 % positive-cores in biopsy and 28.2 % had > 50 %. Median pre-treatment PSA was 9.9 ng/mL. After a median follow-up of 88 months, 41 patients presented biochemical failure and 18 developed distant metastases. Multivariate cox-regression analyses found that MR-T3b Stage (HR 3.88, p = 0.001) and ADT use (HR 3.99, p = 0.03) were the only predictive factors for biochemical failure and the number of positive cores (>50 %) the only independent predictive factor of distant metastases (HR 4.36, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mpMRI evidence of invasion of the SV and involvement of more than 50% of the cores in the prostate biopsy are patients with a higher risk of presenting a biochemical recurrence or developing metastasis due to their prostate cancer, respectively.

Assessing the Feasibility of Using Artificial Intelligence-Segmented Dominant Intraprostatic Lesion for Focal Intraprostatic Boost With External Beam Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

The delineation of dominant intraprostatic gross tumor volumes (GTVs) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can be subject to interobserver variability. We evaluated whether deep learning artificial intelligence (AI)-segmented GTVs can provide a similar degree of intraprostatic boosting with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) as radiation oncologist (RO)-delineated GTVs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified 124 patients who underwent mpMRI followed by EBRT between 2010 and 2013. A reference GTV was delineated by an RO and approved by a board-certified radiologist. We trained an AI algorithm for GTV delineation on 89 patients, and tested the algorithm on 35 patients, each with at least 1 PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) 4 or 5 lesion (46 total lesions). We then asked 5 additional ROs to independently delineate GTVs on the test set. We compared lesion detectability and geometric accuracy of the GTVs from AI and 5 ROs against the reference GTV. Then, we generated EBRT plans (77 Gy prostate) that boosted each observer-specific GTV to 95 Gy. We compared reference GTV dose (D98%) across observers using a mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

On a lesion level, AI GTV exhibited a sensitivity of 82.6% and positive predictive value of 86.4%. Respective ranges among the 5 RO GTVs were 84.8% to 95.7% and 95.1% to 100.0%. Among 30 GTVs mutually identified by all observers, no significant differences in Dice coefficient were detected between AI and any of the 5 ROs. Across all patients, only 2 of 5 ROs had a reference GTV D98% that significantly differed from that of AI by 2.56 Gy (P = .02) and 3.20 Gy (P = .003). The presence of false-negative (-5.97 Gy; P < .001) but not false-positive (P = .24) lesions was associated with reference GTV D98%.

CONCLUSIONS

AI-segmented GTVs demonstrate potential for intraprostatic boosting, although the degree of boosting may be adversely affected by false-negative lesions. Prospective review of AI-segmented GTVs remains essential.

The past and present of prostate cancer and its treatment and diagnostics: A historical review

The prognosis of local prostate cancer has improved drastically during the past 60 years. Similarly, the prognosis in metastatic stage is constantly improving due to a number of new pharmaceuticals introduced over the past 10 years. Previously, only palliative treatments were available for prostate cancer, but today, there are multiple options for treatment with curative intent: robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Additionally, life-prolonging chemotherapeutic and androgen-suppressive treatments, as well as diagnostic imaging and staging, have improved considerably. This review summarizes the history of the treatment and diagnostics of prostate cancer, with a focus on the past 60 years. The aim was to provide a concise and easy-to-read introduction on the matter for all people that work with prostate cancer, as well as for patients. The literature was thoroughly examined covering the period from the earliest traceable records to the latest state-of-the-art studies.

Observer preference of artificial intelligence-generated versus clinical prostate contours for ultrasound-based high dose rate brachytherapy

BACKGROUND

For trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based high dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy, prostate contouring can be challenging due to artifacts from implanted needles, bleeding, and calcifications.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the geometric accuracy and observer preference of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for generating prostate contours on TRUS images with implanted needles.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 150 patients, who underwent HDR brachytherapy. These patients were randomly divided into training (104), validation (26) and testing (20) sets. An AI algorithm was trained/validated utilizing the TRUS image and reference (clinical) contours. The algorithm then provided contours for the test set. For evaluation, we calculated the Dice coefficient between AI and reference prostate contours. We then presented AI and reference contours to eight clinician observers, and asked observers to select their preference. Observers were blinded to the source of contours. We calculated the percentage of cases in which observers preferred AI contours. Lastly, we evaluate whether the presence of AI contours improved the geometric accuracy of prostate contours provided by five resident observers for a 10-patient subset.

RESULTS

The median Dice coefficient between AI and reference contours was 0.92 (IQR: 0.90-0.94). Observers preferred AI contours for a median of 57.5% (IQR: 47.5, 65.0) of the test cases. For resident observers, the presence of AI contours was associated with a 0.107 (95% CI: 0.086, 0.128; p < 0.001) improvement in Dice coefficient for the 10-patient subset.

CONCLUSION

The AI algorithm provided high-quality prostate contours on TRUS with implanted needles. Further prospective study is needed to better understand how to incorporate AI prostate contours into the TRUS-based HDR brachytherapy workflow.

The Current Trend of Radiation Therapy for Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer

A recent approach to radiotherapy for prostate cancer is the administration of high doses of radiation to the prostate while minimizing the risk of side effects. Thus, image-guided radiotherapy utilizes advanced imaging techniques and is a feasible strategy for increasing the radiation dose. New radioactive particles are another approach to achieving high doses and safe procedures. Prostate brachytherapy is currently considered as a combination therapy. Spacers are useful to protect adjacent organs, specifically the rectum, from excessive radiation exposure.

A Multicenter Phase 2 Study of Ultrahypofractionated Stereotactic Boost After External Beam Radiotherapy in Intermediate-risk Prostate Carcinoma: A Very Long-term Analysis of the CKNO-PRO Trial

Background

Genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) complications and tumor relapse can occur in the long term after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Objective

To assess the late tolerance and relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients undergoing hypofractionated stereotactic boost therapy after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Design setting and participants

Seventy-six patients with intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma between August 2010 and April 2013 were included. The first course delivered a dose of 46 Gy by conventional fractionation; the second course was a boost of 18 Gy (3 × 6 Gy) within 10 d.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

GU and GI toxicities were evaluated as the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes were overall survival and RFS. The cumulative incidence of toxicity was calculated using a competing-risk approach. Overall survival and RFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results and limitations

The median follow-up period was 88 mo (range, 81-99 mo). Sixty (79%) patients were treated with the CyberKnife and 16 (21%) using a linear accelerator. The cumulative incidences of GU and GI grade ≥2 toxicities at 120 mo were 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-6.6%) and 11.0% (95% CI: 5.1-19.4%), respectively. The overall survival and RFS rates at 8 yr were 89.1% (95% CI: 77-95%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.1-86.1), respectively.

Conclusions

A very long follow-up showed low GU and GI toxicities after a hypofractionated stereotactic boost after EBRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Dose escalation of the boost delivered by hypofractionated radiation therapy appears safe for use in future trials.

Patient summary

We found low toxicity and good survival rates after a short and high-precision boost after external beam radiotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with a long-term follow-up of 88 mo. This long-term treatment is safe and should be considered in future trials.

Health Services Research in Brachytherapy: Current Understanding and Future Challenges

Brachytherapy is an integral component of cancer care. Widespread concerns have been expressed though about the need for greater brachytherapy availability across many jurisdictions. Yet, health services research in brachytherapy has lagged behind that in external beam radiotherapy. Optimal brachytherapy utilisation, to help inform expected demand, have not been defined beyond the New South Wales region in Australia, with few studies having reported observed brachytherapy utilisation. There is also a relative lack of robust cost and cost-effectiveness studies, making investment decisions in brachytherapy even more uncertain and challenging to justify, despite its key role in cancer control. As the range of indications for brachytherapy expands, providing organ/function preservation for a wider range of diagnoses, there is an urgent need to redress this balance. By outlining the work undertaken in this area to date, we highlight its importance and explore where further study is required.

An Updated Analysis of the Survival Endpoints of ASCENDE-RT

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.

Virtual HDR Boost for Prostate Cancer: Rebooting a Classic Treatment Using Modern Tech

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common malignancy in men. Internal radiotherapy (brachytherapy) has been used to treat PC successfully for over a century. In particular, there is level-one evidence of the benefits of using brachytherapy to escalate the dose of radiotherapy compared with standard external beam radiotherapy approaches. However, the use of PC brachytherapy is declining, despite strong evidence for its improved cancer outcomes. A method using external beam radiotherapy known as virtual high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (vHDRB) aims to noninvasively mimic a brachytherapy boost radiation dose plan. In this review, we consider the evidence supporting brachytherapy boosts for PC and the continuing evolution of vHDRB approaches, culminating in the current generation of clinical trials, which will help define the role of this emerging modality.

Brachytherapy boost improves survival and decreases risk of developing distant metastases compared to external beam radiotherapy alone in intermediate and high risk group prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite several prospective trials showing a clinical benefit of combining external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy boost (BTB) for the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients, none of these trials were designed to test for a survival difference. In this study, we aimed to collect a large multi-institutional database to determine whether BT boost was associated with a statistically significant improvement in survival and a reduction of distant metastases based on real-world data.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We collected the data of patients treated for intermediate- or high-risk PCa with definitive EBRT or BTB, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), between January 2003 and December 2014 at two tertiary institutions. The statistical endpoints included overall survival (OS), freedom from distant metastases (FFDM), and metastases-free survival (MFS). The impact of treatment modality was assessed using Cox regression models and log-rank testing after one-to-one propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 1641 patients treated with EBRT (n=1148) or high-dose-rate BTB (n=493) were analyzed. The median survival and clinical follow-up were 117.8 (IQR 78-143.3) and 60.7 months, respectively. The radiotherapy modality (BTB) remained an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.63-0.88; p<0.001), FFDM (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.4-0.73; p<0.001), and MFS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.85; p<0.001). After propensity score matching, the remaining 986 patients were well-balanced in terms of age, maximum PSA, ISUP grade group, and TNM T stage. OS (p=0.001), FFDM (p<0.001) and MFS (p<0.001) were significantly higher in the BTB group.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong positive association between BTB and OS, FFDM, and MFS in PCa patients treated with definitive RT for intermediate- or high-risk PCa.

Toxicity of dose-escalated radiotherapy up to 84 Gy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The outcome of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCA) depends on the delivered dose. While the evidence for dose-escalated RT up to 80 gray (Gy) is well established, there have been only few studies examining dose escalation above 80 Gy. We initiated the present study to assess the safety of dose escalation up to 84 Gy.

METHODS

In our retrospective analysis, we included patients who received dose-escalated RT for PCA at our institution between 2016 and 2021. We evaluated acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity as well as late GU and GI toxicity.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients could be evaluated, of whom 24 patients had received 80 Gy and 62 patients 84 Gy (35 without pelvic and 27 with pelvic radiotherapy). Regarding acute toxicities, no > grade 2 adverse events occurred. Acute GU/GI toxicity of grade 2 occurred in 12.5%/12.5% of patients treated with 80 Gy, in 25.7%/14.3% of patients treated with 84 Gy to the prostate only, and in 51.9%/12.9% of patients treated with 84 Gy and the pelvis included. Late GU/GI toxicity of grade ≥ 2 occurred in 4.2%/8.3% of patients treated with 80 Gy, in 7.1%/3.6% of patients treated with 84 Gy prostate only, and in 18.2%/0% of patients treated with 84 Gy pelvis included (log-rank test p = 0.358).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that dose-escalated RT for PCA up to 84 Gy is feasible and safe without a significant increase in acute toxicity. Further follow-up is needed to assess late toxicity and survival.

Outcomes following brachytherapy boost for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: A retrospective bicenter study by the SFRO brachytherapy group

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy dose escalation improves biochemical control in intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. Brachytherapy boost was shown to further improve biochemical control compared to radiotherapy alone in three randomized trials. The SFRO brachytherapy group sought to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of BT-boost for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer in real life, and to determine prognostic factors for efficacy and toxicity.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A retrospective study was conducted, including all patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer treated with a combination of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BB), from 2006 until December 2019 at two centers. Patient characteristics, initial disease, treatment and follow-up were collected.

RESULTS

709 patients from two centers were analyzed given a short follow-up in the other centers. Out of those, 277 were intermediate risk (170 favorable and 107 unfavorable) and 432 were high risk. The median EBRT and HDR-BB doses were 46 Gy (35-50) and 14 Gy (10-20). After a median follow-up of 62 months, biochemical control at 5 years was 87.5 % for the overall population, 91 % and 85 % for intermediate- and high-risk cancers, respectively. At 5 years, biochemical and clinical relapse-free survival, metastasis-free survival and local control rates were 83 %, 90 % and 97 % respectively. 5-years overall survival was 94 %. Late grade 2 or higher GU or GI toxicity was found in 36 patients (5 %) and 9 patients (1.3 %).

CONCLUSION

This bicenter analysis shows the efficacy and tolerability of HDR-BB as a complement to external radiotherapy. Further improvements such as combination with new hormonal agents or new brachytherapy-radiotherapy fractionation regimens are warranted to improve further the outcomes and therapeutic ratio.

Dose Distribution of High Dose-Rate and Low Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy at Different Intervals-Impact of a Hydrogel Spacer and Prostate Volume

The study aimed to compare the dose distribution in permanent low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), specifically focusing on the impact of a spacer and prostate volume. The relative dose distribution of 102 LDR-BT patients (prescription dose 145 Gy) at different intervals was compared with the dose distribution of 105 HDR-BT patients (232 HDR-BT fractions with prescription doses of 9 Gy, n = 151, or 11.5 Gy, n = 81). A hydrogel spacer (10 mL) was only injected before HDR-BT. For the analysis of dose coverage outside the prostate, a 5 mm margin was added to the prostate volume (PV+). Prostate V100 and D90 of HDR-BT and LDR-BT at different intervals were comparable. HDR-BT was characterized by a considerably more homogenous dose distribution and lower doses to the urethra. The minimum dose in 90% of PV+ was higher for larger prostates. As a consequence of the hydrogel spacer in HDR-BT patients, the intraoperative dose at the rectum was considerably lower, especially in smaller prostates. However, prostate volume dose coverage was not improved. The dosimetric results well explain clinical differences between these techniques reported in the literature review, specifically comparable tumor control, higher acute urinary toxicity rates in LDR-BT in comparison to HDR-BT, decreased rectal toxicity after spacer placement, and improved tumor control after HDR-BT in larger prostate volumes.

Function Preservation With Brachytherapy: Reviving the Art. Improving Quality of Life With Brachytherapy for Urological Malignancies

Brachytherapy for localised prostate, muscle-invasive bladder and penile cancer is well established, providing high tumour dose delivery and minimising normal tissue doses compared with external beam techniques. In prostate cancer, the main impact on quality of life relates to diminished sexual function and irritative or obstructive urinary symptoms, which are seen up to 15 years after treatment. Significant changes in bowel function are rare. Compared with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy, irritative or obstructive urinary symptoms are more prominent, whereas incontinence is less than after radical prostatectomy and bowel changes are less than after external beam radiotherapy. For muscle-invasive bladder cancer, when compared with radical cystectomy, although no difference is seen for urinary symptoms or fatigue, role and social functioning scores are higher and there is better post-treatment sexual function in both men and women. Compared with surgical treatment for penile cancer, brachytherapy results in better erectile function scores than after glansectomy and partial penectomy and high quality of life scores, with good satisfaction ratings for cosmetic appearance.

Design and Experimental Setup of a Robotic Medical Instrument for Brachytherapy in Non-Resectable Liver Tumors

This paper presents a study regarding the design and the experimental setup of a medical robotic system for brachytherapy using tribology analysis. The robotic system is composed of a collaborative robotic arm and a multi-needle brachytherapy instrument controlled using a unified control system embedding a haptic device and force-feedback. This work is oriented towards identifying the technical characteristics of the system components to determine the accuracy of the procedure, as well as using different scenarios for needle insertion in ex vivo porcine liver tissue in order to determine the forces required for insertion and extraction of the needle and the friction coefficient that accompanies the previously mentioned forces. Subsequent to the computation of the friction forces, the normal forces and the wear during the needle insertion are determined with the scope of predicting the lifecycle of some components of the medical device.

Does brachytherapy boost improve survival outcomes in Gleason Grade Group 5 patients treated with external beam radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

•

Adding a BT boost to external beam radiation can be used to intensify treatment.

•

BT boost improves DMFS but not PCSS or OS in Gleason GG5 prostate cancer.

•

There is no prospective data evaluating BT boost in Gleason GG5 disease.

Background

Localized Gleason Grade Group 5 (GG5) prostate cancer has a poor prognosis and is associated with a higher risk of treatment failure, metastases, and death. Treatment intensification with the addition of a brachytherapy (BT) boost to external beam radiation (EBRT) maximizes local control, which may translate into improved survival outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes for Gleason GG5 patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and either EBRT or EBRT + BT. The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Survival probabilities for distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted and pooled to create a summary survival curve for each treatment modality, which were then compared at fixed points in time. An additional analysis was performed among studies directly comparing EBRT and EBRT + BT using a random-effects model.

Results

Eight retrospective studies were selected for inclusion, representing a total of 1393 EBRT patients and 877 EBRT + BT patients. EBRT + BT was associated with higher DMFS starting at 6 years (86.8 % vs 78.8 %; p = 0.018) and extending out to 10 years (81.8 % vs 66.1 %; p < 0.001), with an overall hazard ratio of 0.53 (p = 0.02). There was no difference in PCSS or OS between treatment modalities. Differences in toxicity were not assessed. There was a wide range of heterogeneity between studies.

Conclusion

The addition of BT boost is associated with improved long-term DMFS in Gleason GG5 prostate cancer, but its impact on PCSS and OS remains unclear. These results may be confounded by the heterogeneity across study populations with concern for a risk of bias. Therefore, prospective studies are necessary to further elucidate the survival advantage associated with BT boost, which must ultimately be weighed against the toxicity-related implications of this treatment strategy.

Catheters and dose optimization using a modified CVT algorithm and multi-criteria optimization in prostate HDR brachytherapy

Currently, in HDR brachytherapy planning, the catheter's positions are often selected by the planner which involves the planner's experience. The catheters are then inserted using a template which helps to guide the catheters. For certain applications, it is of interest to choose the optimal location and number of catheters needed for dose coverage and potential decrease of the treatment's toxicity. Hence, it is of great importance to develop patient-specific algorithms for catheters and dose optimization. A modified Centroidal Voronoi tessellation (CVT) algorithm is implemented and merged with a GPU-based multi-criteria optimization algorithm (gMCO). The CVT algorithm optimizes the catheters' positions, and the gMCO algorithm optimizes the dwell times and dwell positions. The CVT algorithm can be used simultaneously for insertion with or without a template. Some improvements to the CVT algorithm are presented such as a new way of considering the area that needs to be covered. One hundred and eight previously treated prostates HDR cases using real-time ultrasound (US) are used to evaluate the different optimization procedures. The plan robustness is evaluated using two types of errors; deviations (random) in the insertion and deviation (systematic) in the reconstruction of the catheters. Using gMCO on clinically inserted catheter increases the acceptance rate by 37% for RTOG criteria. Our results show that all the patients respect RTOG criteria with 11 catheters using CVT+gMCO with a template of 5 mm. The number of catheters needed for all patients to respect RTOG criteria with the freehand technique is 10 catheters using CVT+gMCO. When deviations are introduced, using a template, the acceptance rate goes to 85% with 3 mm deviations using 11 catheters. This decrease is less significant when the number of catheters is higher, decreasing by less than 5% with a 3 mm deviation using 13 catheters or more. In conclusion, it is feasible to decrease the number of catheters needed to treat most patients. Some cases still need a high number of catheters to reach the plan's criteria. Using gMCO allows an increase in the plan quality while using CVT reduces the number of catheters. A higher number of catheters equates to plans that are more robust to deviations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Combined brachytherapy and ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: Comparison of toxicity outcomes using a high-dose-rate (HDR) versus low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

To compare toxicity profiles of low-dose rate (LDR) and high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost combined with ultra-hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (UH-EBRT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

99 patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent an HDR (n = 59) or LDR (n = 40) boost combined with UH-EBRT (5 Gy x 5) . HDR (Ir-192) was delivered a single dose (15 Gy) and LDR (Pd-103) prescription dose was 100 Gy. Median baseline IPSS was 5 for both cohorts. Median follow-up was 29.3mos. Cumulative incidences were calculated for toxicity. Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate associations.

RESULTS

Overall incidence of grade 2 genitourinary toxicity for the entire cohort at 12 and 24 months was 21% and 29%, respectively. The incidence of grade 2 genitourinary toxicity at 12 and 24 months was higher for LDR cohort compared with HDR cohort (45% vs 5.1% and 55% vs 11%; p<0.001). On MVA, only treatment regimen (LDR versus HDR) was associated with grade 2+ genitourinary toxicity (p<0.001). Two patients experienced grade 2 rectal toxicity in each cohort. No grade > 3 toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LDR and HDR brachytherapy combined with UH-EBRT had favorable toxicity profiles, but significantly less grade 2+ genitourinary toxicity was observed in patients receiving HDR.

Role of Brachytherapy Boost in Clinically Localized Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Lack of Benefit in Patients with Very High-Risk Factors T3b-4 and/or Gleason 9-10

Simple Summary

In general, brachytherapy (BT) improves biochemical control in intermediate-to high-risk prostate cancer. We previously reported that importance of very high-risk factors (VHR: T3b–4 or Gleason score 9–10) and patients with double VHR (VHR-2) showed the worst prognosis among high-risk groups. We explored the role of BT-boost in patients with VHR and compared it to intermediate- and other high-risk groups. We confirmed that BT-boost improved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) control but resulted in equivalent overall survival rates for the intermediate- and high-risk groups, except for the patients with VHR. In the VHR-1 group (single VHR), BT-boost showed superior PSA control to conventional-dose RT (EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) but not to the dose-escalated radiotherapy group (EQD2 ≥ 74 Gy). In the VHR-2 group, BT-boost did not improve the biochemical control rate of either Conv RT or DeRT. BT-boost showed no benefit over modern DeRT in the patients with VHR.

Abstract

This study examined the role of brachytherapy boost (BT-boost) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer, especially in patients with very high-risk factors (VHR: T3b–4 or Gleason score 9–10) as patients with double very high-risk factors (VHR-2: T3b–4 and Gleason score 9–10) previously showed worst prognosis in localized prostate cancer. We retrospectively reviewed multi-institutional data of 1961 patients that were administered radiotherapy (1091 BT-boost and 872 EBRT: 593 conventional-dose RT (Conv RT: equivalent to doses of 2 Gy per fraction = EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) and 216 dose-escalating RT (DeRT = EQD2 ≥ 74 Gy). We found that BT-boost improved PSA control and provided an equivalent overall survival rate in the intermediate- and high-risk groups, except for patients within the VHR factor group. In the VHR-1 group (single VHR), BT-boost showed a superior biochemical control rate to the Conv RT group but not to the DeRT group. In the VHR-2 group, BT-boost did not improve outcomes of either Conv RT or DeRT groups. In conclusion, BT-boost showed no benefit to modern DeRT in the patients with VHR; therefore, they are not good candidates for BT-boost to improve outcome and may be amenable to clinical trials using multimodal intensified systemic treatments.

Comparing Iridium-192 with Cobalt-60 sources in high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Dosimetric and clinical comparison of two cohorts of Iridium-192 (Ir-192) and Cobalt-60 (Co-60) high-dose-rate brachytherapy (DR-BT) boost for localized prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with localized prostate cancer receiving either Ir-192 or Co-60 high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost in combination with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in the period of 2002-2019 were evaluated for dosimetric differences, side effects, biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and overall survival (OS). EBRT, delivered in 46 Gy (D_Mean) in conventional fractionation, was followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D_90%) 2 and 4 weeks after EBRT. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were evaluated utilizing the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 and biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix definition.

RESULTS

A total of 338 patients with a median follow-up of 101.8 (IQR 65.7-143.0) months were evaluated. At 10 years the estimated bRFS, MFS, and OS in our patient sample were 81.1%/71.2% (p=.073), 87.0%/85.7% (p=.862), and 70.1%/69.7% (p=.998) for Ir-192/Co-60, respectively. Cumulative 5-year late grade ≥2 GU toxicity was 20% for Ir-192 and 18.3% for Co-60 (p=.771). Cumulative 5-year late grade ≥2 GI toxicity was 5.8% for Ir-192 and 4.6% for Co-60 (p=.610). Grade 3 late GU side effects were pronounced in the Ir-192 cohort with 8.1% versus 1.4% in the Co-60 cohort (p=.01), which was associated with significantly lower dose to the organs at risk in the Co-60 cohort. PTV D_90% was 9.3 ± 0.8 Gy versus 9.0 ± 1.1 Gy (p=.027) for Ir-192 versus Co-60. PTV V_100% and PTV V_150% were not significantly different between both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Co-60 brachytherapy sources are an effective alternative to Ir-192 in combined prostate HDR-BT boost + EBRT.

Propensity score-matched analysis comparing dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Purpose

Dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT + high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost are guideline-recommended treatment options for localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term outcome and toxicity of dose-escalated EBRT versus EBRT + HDR-BT boost.

Methods

From 2002 to 2019, 744 consecutive patients received either EBRT or EBRT + HDR-BT boost, of whom 516 patients were propensity score matched. Median follow-up was 95.3 months. Cone beam CT image-guided EBRT consisted of 33 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost up to 76.23 Gy (D_Mean). Combined treatment was delivered as 46 Gy (D_Mean) EBRT, followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D_90%). Propensity score matching was applied before analysis of the primary endpoint, estimated 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), and the secondary endpoints metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic parameters were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard modelling. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluation used the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (v5.0).

Results

The estimated 10-year bRFS was 82.0% vs. 76.4% (p = 0.075) for EBRT alone versus combined treatment, respectively. The estimated 10-year MFS was 82.9% vs. 87.0% (p = 0.195) and the 10-year OS was 65.7% vs. 68.9% (p = 0.303), respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late GU ≥ grade 2 toxicities were seen in 23.6% vs. 19.2% (p = 0.086) and 5‑year late GI ≥ grade 2 toxicities in 11.1% vs. 5.0% of the patients (p = 0.002); cumulative 5‑year late grade 3 GU toxicity occurred in 4.2% vs. 3.6% (p = 0.401) and GI toxicity in 1.0% vs. 0.3% (p = 0.249), respectively.

Conclusion

Both treatment groups showed excellent long-term outcomes with low rates of severe toxicity.

High-Dose-Rate brachytherapy boost for elderly patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer: 5-year clinical outcome of the PROSTAGE cohort

•

Intermediate/high risk elderly prostate cancer benefits less from received standards of care.

•

Age is an independent factor for disease control and tolerance.

•

Brachytherapy boost remains efficient and feasible in the elderly.

•

Careful discussion for super elderly patients (>80 y) is warranted.

•

Oncogeriatric assessment is necessary to identify best candidates.

Purpose

To analyze the oncological outcome in elderly (>70 years) prostate cancer after high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDB) boost.

Materials/methods

In this retrospective study, patients with intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by HDB boost with/without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The impact of age (≤70y vs. > 70y) was investigated. Oncological outcome focused on biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cause-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Late genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities were investigated.

Results

From 07/08 to 01/22, 518 pts received a HDB boost, and 380 were analyzed (≤70y:177pts [46.6%] vs. > 70y:203pts [53.4%]). Regarding NCCN classification, 98 pts (≤70y: 53pts; >70y: 45pts; p = 0.107) and 282 pts (≤70y: 124pts; >70y: 158pts; p = NS) were IR and HR pts respectively. Median EBRT dose was 46 Gy [37.5–46] in 23 fractions [14–25]. HDB boost delivered a single fraction of 14/15 Gy (79%). ADT was used in 302 pts (≤70y: 130pts; >70y: 172pts; p = 0.01). With MFU of 72.6 months [67–83] for the whole cohort, 5-y bRFS, 5-y CSS and 5-y OS were 88% [85–92], 99% [97–100] and 94% [92–97] respectively; there was no statistical difference between the two age groups except for 5-y CSS (p = 0.05). Late GU and GI toxicity rates were 32.4% (G ≥ 3 7.3%) and 10.1% (no G3) respectively.

Conclusions

For IR and HR prostate cancers, HDB boost leads to high rates of disease control with few late G ≥ 3 GU/GI toxicities. For elderly pts, HDB boost remains warranted mainly in HR pts, while competing comorbidity factors influence OS.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy versus Brachytherapy: Relative Strengths of Two Highly Efficient Options for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a valid option for the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. In randomized trials, it was found not inferior to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). It also compares favorably to brachytherapy (BT) even if level 1 evidence is lacking. However, BT remains a strong competitor, especially for young patients, as series with 10-15 years of median follow-up have proven its efficacy over time. SBRT will thus have to confirm its effectiveness over the long-term as well. SBRT has the advantage over BT of less acute urinary toxicity and, more hypothetically, less sexual impairment. Data are limited regarding SBRT for high-risk disease while BT, as a boost after EBRT, has demonstrated superiority against EBRT alone in randomized trials. However, patients should be informed of significant urinary toxicity. SBRT is under investigation in strategies of treatment intensification such as combination of EBRT plus SBRT boost or focal dose escalation to the tumor site within the prostate. Our goal was to examine respective levels of evidence of SBRT and BT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in terms of oncologic outcomes, toxicity and quality of life, and to discuss strategies of treatment intensification.

Comparison of toxicities between ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy versus brachytherapy with or without external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

To compare gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHF) or brachytherapy [BT; low dose rate, LDR or high dose rate (HDR) with or without external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)]. We compared 253 UHF and 1664 BT ± EBRT groups. The main outcomes were the incidence and severity of acute and late GU and GI toxicities. The secondary endpoint was biochemical control rate. Cumulative late actuarial GU toxicity did not differ for grade ≥ 2 (8.6% at 5-years in UHF and 13.3% in BT ± EBRT, hazard ratio [HR], 0.7066; 95% CI, 0.4093–1.22, p = 0.2127). Actuarial grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicity was higher in UHF (5.8% at 5-years, HR: 3.619; 95% CI, 1.774–7.383, p < 0.001) than in BT ± EBRT (1.1%). In detailed subgroup analyses, the high-dose UHF group (H-UHF) using BED ≥ 226 Gy_1.5, showed higher GI toxicity profiles than the other subgroups (HDR + EBRT, LDR + EBRT, and LDR monotherapy, and L-UHF BED < 226 Gy_1.5) with equivalent GU toxicity to other modalities. With a median follow-up period of 32 months and 75 months, the actuarial biochemical control rates were equivalent between the UHF and BT ± EBRT groups. UHF showed equivalent efficacy, higher GI and equivalent GU accumulated toxicity to BT ± EBRT, and the toxicity of UHF was largely dependent on the UHF schedule.

Radiation therapy for prostate cancer: What's the best in 2021

Radiotherapy is highly involved in the management of prostate cancer. Its features and potential applications experienced a radical evolution over last decades, as they are associated to the continuous evolution of available technology and current oncological innovations. Some application of radiotherapy like brachytherapy have been recently enriched by innovative features and multidisciplinary dedications. In this report we aim to put some questions regarding the following issues regarding multiple aspects of modern application of radiation oncology: the current application of radiation oncology; the modern role of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for both the management of primary lesions and for lymph-nodal recurrence; the management of the oligometastatic presentations; the role of brachytherapy; the aid played by the application of the organ at risk spacer (spacer OAR), fiducial markers, electromagnetic tracking systems and on-line Magnetic Resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), and the role of the new opportunity represented by radiomic analysis.

GEC-ESTRO ACROP prostate brachytherapy guidelines

This is an evidence-based guideline for prostate brachytherapy. Throughout levels of evidence quoted are those from the Oxford Centre for Evidence based Medicine (https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009). Prostate interstitial brachytherapy using either permanent or temporary implantation is an established and evolving treatment technique for non-metastatic prostate cancer. Permanent brachytherapy uses Low Dose Rate (LDR) sources, most commonly I-125, emitting photon radiation over months. Temporary brachytherapy involves first placing catheters within the prostate and, on confirmation of accurate positioning, temporarily introducing the radioactive source, generally High Dose Rate (HDR) radioactive sources of Ir-192 or less commonly Co-60. Pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy has also been used for prostate cancer [1] but few centres have adopted this approach. Previous GEC ESTRO recommendations have considered LDR and HDR separately [2-4] but as there is considerable overlap, this paper provides updated guidance for both treatment techniques. Prostate brachytherapy allows safe radiation dose escalation beyond that achieved using external beam radiotherapy alone as it has greater conformity around the prostate, sparing surrounding rectum, bladder, and penile bulb. In addition there are fewer issues with changes in prostate position during treatment delivery. Systematic review and randomised trials using both techniques as boost treatments demonstrate improved PSA control when compared to external beam radiotherapy alone [5-7].

Prostate cancer brachytherapy: SFRO guidelines 2021

Prostate brachytherapy techniques are described, concerning both permanent seed implant and high dose rate brachytherapy. The following guidelines are presented: brachytherapy indications, implant procedure for permanent low dose rate implants and high dose rate with source projector, as well as dose and dose-constraints objectives, immediate postoperative management, post-treatment evaluation, and long-term follow-up.

External radiotherapy for prostatic cancers

We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of oncological radiotherapy on external radiotherapy of prostate cancer. External radiotherapy is intended for all localized prostate cancers, and more recently for oligometastatic prostate cancers. The irradiation techniques are detailed. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with prostate image-guided radiotherapy is the recommended technique. A total dose of 74 to 80Gy is recommended in case of standard fractionation (2Gy per fraction). Moderate hypofractionation (total dose of 60Gy at a rate of 3Gy per fraction over 4 weeks) in the prostate has become a standard of therapy. Simultaneous integrated boost techniques can be used to treat lymph node areas. Extreme hypofractionation (35 to 40Gy in five fractions) using stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered a therapeutic option to treat exclusively the prostate. The postoperative irradiation technique, indicated mainly in case of biological recurrence and lymph node involvement, is detailed.

Two-Weekly High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost After External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Outcome and Toxicity Analysis

Purpose

Evaluation of clinical outcome of two-weekly high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

338 patients with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive EBRT followed by a two-weekly high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT boost) in the period of 2002 to 2019 were analyzed. EBRT, delivered in 46 Gy (D_Mean) in conventional fractionation, was followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D_90%) two and four weeks after EBRT. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was added in 176 (52.1%) patients. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was evaluated utilizing the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix definition.

Results

Median follow-up was 101.8 months. 15 (4.4%)/115 (34.0%)/208 (61.5%) patients had low-/intermediate-/high-risk cancer according to the D`Amico risk classification. Estimated 5-year and 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 84.7% and 75.9% for all patients. The estimated 5-year bRFS was 93.3%, 93.4% and 79.5% for low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease, respectively. The estimated 10-year freedom from distant metastasis (FFM) and overall survival (OS) rates were 86.5% and 70.0%. Cumulative 5-year late GU toxicity and late GI toxicity grade ≥ 2 was observed in 19.3% and 5.0% of the patients, respectively. Cumulative 5-year late grade 3 GU/GI toxicity occurred in 3.6%/0.3%.

Conclusions

Two-weekly HDR-BT boost after EBRT for localized prostate cancer showed an excellent toxicity profile with low GU/GI toxicity rates and effective long-term biochemical control.

American brachytherapy society radiation oncology alternative payment model task force: Quality measures and metrics for brachytherapy

PURPOSE

Brachytherapy is an essential technique to deliver radiation therapy and is involved in the treatment of multiple disease sites as monotherapy or as an adjunct to external beam radiation therapy. With a growing focus on the cost and value of cancer treatments as well new payment models, it is essential that standardized quality measures and metrics exist to allow for straightforward assessment of brachytherapy quality and for the development of clinically significant and relevant clinical data elements. We present the American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement on quality measures and metrics for brachytherapy as well as suggested clinical data elements.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in disease site specific brachytherapy created a consensus statement based on a literature review and clinical experience.

RESULTS

Key quality measures (ex. workup, clinical indications), dosimetric metrics, and clinical data elements for brachytherapy were evaluated for each modality including breast cancer, cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, prostate cancer, keratinocyte carcinoma, soft tissue sarcoma, and uveal melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus statement provides standardized quality measures and dosimetric quality metrics as well as clinical data elements for each disease site to allow for standardized assessments of brachytherapy quality. Moving forward, a similar paradigm can be considered for external beam radiation therapy as well, providing comprehensive radiation therapy quality measures, metrics, and clinical data elements that can be incorporated into new payment models.