Prostate high dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer: Late toxicity and patient reported outcomes from a randomized phase II clinical trial

Prostate high dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: Efficacy results from a randomized phase II clinical trial of one fraction of 19 Gy or two fractions of 13.5 Gy: A 9-year update

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

High dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a monotherapy is an accepted treatment for localized prostate cancer, but the optimal dose and fractionation schedule remain unknown. We report on the efficacy of a randomized Phase II trial comparing HDR monotherapy delivered as 27 Gy in 2 fractions vs. 19 Gy in 1 fraction with a median follow-up of 9 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Enrolled patients had low or intermediate-risk disease, <60 cc prostate volume and no androgen deprivation use. Patients were randomized to 27 Gy in 2 fractions delivered one week apart vs a single fraction of 19 Gy.

RESULTS

170 patients were randomized: median age 65 years, median follow-up 107 months and median baseline PSA 6.35 ng/ml. NCCN risk categories comprised low (19 %), favourable (51 %), and unfavourable intermediate risk (30 %). The median PSA at 8 years was 0.08 ng/ml in the 2-fraction arm vs. 0.89 ng/ml in the single-fraction arm. The cumulative incidence of local failure at 8 years was 11.2 % in the 2-fraction arm vs. 35.9 % in the single-fraction arm (p < 0.001). The incidence of distant failure at 8 years was 3.8 % in the 2-fraction arm and 2.5 % in the single-fraction arm (p = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

HDR monotherapy delivered in two fractions of 13.5 Gy demonstrated a persistent cancer control rate at 8 years and was well-tolerated. Single-fraction monotherapy yielded poor oncologic control and is not recommended. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimal HDR monotherapy strategies for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: a multicenter analysis evaluating tumor control and late toxicity after brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in 1293 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Comparing oncological outcomes and toxicity after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer using HDR- or LDR-mono-brachytherapy (BT), or conventionally (CF) or moderately hypofractionated (HF) external beam radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospectively, patients with low- (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer treated between 03/2000 and 09/2022 in two centers were included. Treatment was performed using either CF with total doses between 74 and 78 Gy, HF with 2.4-2.6 Gy per fraction in 30 fractions, or LDR- or HDR-BT. Biochemical control (BC) according to the Phoenix criteria, and late gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to RTOG/EORTC criteria were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 1293 patients, 697 with LR and 596 with IR prostate cancer. Of these, 470, 182, 480, and 161 were treated with CF, HF, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT, respectively. For BC, we did not find a significant difference between treatments in LR and IR (p = 0.31 and 0.72). The 5‑year BC for LR was between 93 and 95% for all treatment types. For IR, BC was between 88% in the CF and 94% in the HF group. For CF and HF, maximum GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 was between 22 and 27%. For LDR-BT, we observed 67% grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Maximum GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 9%. For HDR-BT, we observed 1% GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity and 19% GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity.

CONCLUSION

All types of therapy were effective and well received. HDR-BT caused the least late toxicities, especially GI.

Population-based patient-reported quality of life outcomes following low-dose-rate versus high-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate patient reported quality of life outcomes (QoL) following low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) monotherapy for prostate cancer at a population-based setting.

METHODS

The study comprised men with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Victoria (PCOR-Vic), who were treated with LDR-BT or HDR-BT monotherapy between 2015 and 2020 and completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire 12-month post-treatment. Men who had ADT were excluded (n = 12). Differences in substantial symptoms (i.e. 'moderate' or 'big' problem on a 5-point Likert scale) between LDR-BT and HDR-BT arms were evaluated using Pearson's chi-squared test. Multivariable linear regressions were used to estimate differences in EPIC-26 urinary, bowel and sexual functional domain scores between LDR-BT and HDR-BT arms.

RESULTS

Overall, 198 men were included in this study, of which 167 (84%) had LDR-BT and 31 (16%) had HDR-BT. 9 (4.6%), 10 (5.1%) and 56 (28%) reported substantial symptoms for overall urinary, bowel and sexual function at 12-month post-treatment, with no significant difference between LDR-BT and HDR-BT arms. The adjusted mean differences in urinary incontinence, urinary obstructive, bowel and sexual function domain scores between LDR-BT and HDT-BT were: -3.53 (-8.21 to 1.14), -1.27 (-6.88 to 4.35), -0.01 (-5.63 to 5.63) and -8.68 (-21.44 to 4.07) respectively - these were not statistically significant and did not meet the minimal clinically important difference.

CONCLUSION

This is the first Australian population-based study comparing QoL in men who had LDR-BT and HDR-BT, with no statistically or clinically significant differences in QoL observed at 12-month post-treatment.

Efficacy of focal high-dose-rate brachytherapy in the treatment of patients diagnosed with low or favourable: intermediate-risk prostate cancer-a protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PCa) is men's second most predominant cancer worldwide. Because the prostate-specific antigen test is used in diagnostics, PCa is more often diagnosed in the early stages, making radical treatment of the disease possible. However, it is estimated that over a million men worldwide suffer from radical treatment-related complications. Thus, focal treatment has been proposed as a solution, which aims to destroy the predominant lesson that determines the progression of the disease. The main objective of our study is to compare the quality of life and efficacy of patients diagnosed with PCa before and after the treatment with focal high-dose-rate brachytherapy and to compare results with focal low-dose-rate brachytherapy and active surveillance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

150 patients diagnosed with low-risk or favourable intermediate-risk PCa who meet the inclusion criteria will be enrolled in the study. Patients are going to be randomly assigned to the study groups: focal high-dose-rate brachytherapy (group 1), focal low-dose-rate brachytherapy (group 2) and active surveillance (group 3). The study's primary outcomes are quality of life after the procedure and time without biochemical disease recurrence. The secondary outcomes are early and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal reactions after the focal high-dose and low-dose-rate brachytherapies and evaluation of the importance and significance of in vivo dosimetry used for high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Bioethics committee approval was obtained before this study. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Vilnius regional bioethics committee; approval ID 2022/6-1438-911.

Safety and efficacy associated with single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy in localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy (SFHDR) for localized prostate cancer has been tried in clinical trials, relevant medical evidence is currently lacking. It is necessary to systematically analyze the safety and efficacy of SFHDR.

METHODS

Comprehensive and systematic searches for eligible studies were performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The primary endpoints included safety and efficacy, represented by toxic effects and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), respectively. The proportion rates were used as the effect measure for each study and were presented with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and related 95% prediction interval (PI). Restricted maximum-likelihood estimator (REML) and the Hartung-Knapp method were used in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis, including 1440 patients. The median age of patients was 66.9 years old (62-73 years old) and the median follow-up was 47.5 months (12-75 months). The estimates of cumulative occurrence for severe gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxic effects were 0.1% (95% CI 0-0.2%) and 0.4% (95% CI 0-1.2%), and for grade 2 toxic effects were 1.6% (95% CI 0.1-4.7%) and 17.1% (95% CI 5.4-33.5%), respectively. The estimate of 3‑year bRFS was 87.5% (95% CI 84.4-90.3%) and 71.0% (95% CI 63.0-78.3%) for 5‑year bRFS. The pooled bRFS rates for low-risk patients were 99.0% (95% CI 85.2-100.0%) at 3 years and 80.9% (95% CI 75.4-85.9%) at 5 years, and the risk group was found to be statistically correlated with bRFS (3-year bRFS, P < 0.01; 5‑year bRFS, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

SFHDR is associated with favorable tolerability and suboptimal clinical benefit in patients with localized prostate cancer. Ongoing and planned high-quality prospective studies are necessary to verify its safety and efficacy.

Does particle radiation have superior radiobiological advantages for prostate cancer cells? A systematic review of in vitro studies

BACKGROUND

Charged particle beams from protons to carbon ions provide many significant physical benefits in radiation therapy. However, preclinical studies of charged particle therapy for prostate cancer are extremely limited. The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the biological effects of charged particles on prostate cancer from the perspective of in vitro studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching EMBASE (OVID), Medline (OVID), and Web of Science databases to identify the publications assessing the radiobiological effects of charged particle irradiation on prostate cancer cells. The data of relative biological effectiveness (RBE), surviving fraction (SF), standard enhancement ratio (SER) and oxygen enhancement ratio (OER) were extracted.

RESULTS

We found 12 studies met the eligible criteria. The relative biological effectiveness values of proton and carbon ion irradiation ranged from 0.94 to 1.52, and 1.67 to 3.7, respectively. Surviving fraction of 2 Gy were 0.17 ± 0.12, 0.55 ± 0.20 and 0.53 ± 0.16 in carbon ion, proton, and photon irradiation, respectively. PNKP inhibitor and gold nanoparticles were favorable sensitizing agents, while it was presented poorer performance in GANT61. The oxygen enhancement ratio values of photon and carbon ion irradiation were 2.32 ± 0.04, and 1.77 ± 0.13, respectively. Charged particle irradiation induced more G0-/G1- or G2-/M-phase arrest, more expression of γ-H2AX, more apoptosis, and lower motility and/or migration ability than photon irradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both carbon ion and proton irradiation have advantages over photon irradiation in radiobiological effects on prostate cancer cell lines. Carbon ion irradiation seems to have further advantages over proton irradiation.

A Prospective Study of MR-Guided Focal Salvage High Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: Updated Results of 30 Patients

PURPOSE

Limited prospective data on focal salvage high dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy are available. We sought to explore the toxicities, health related quality of life (HRQOL) and efficacy of focal salvage HDR brachytherapy in a prospective clinical trial. This report represents updated results of previously published data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy were enrolled. Patients received MRI-guided, ultrasound-based focal HDR brachytherapy delivered over two fractions of 13.5 Gy delivered 1-2 weeks apart. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was not used.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were treated between 2012-2019. At a median follow-up of 39 months, the three-year biochemical failure-free rate was 61.8% (95% CI 44.0-86.6%), and three-year ADT/salvage therapy-free rate was 86.0% (95% CI 74.1-99.8%). Seventeen patients experienced subsequent biochemical failure, 9 have received ADT and/or further local salvage, and no patients have died from prostate cancer. Of the 28 patients who had a post-treatment MRI, 26 had a local treatment response. No acute grade ≥ 3 GU/GI toxicity was observed. One temporary late grade 3 GU toxicity event occurred, and no late grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity was seen. No significant decline in urinary or bowel HRQOL was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal salvage HDR brachytherapy has a favourable side effect profile, no significant decline in HRQOL and 3-year biochemical control rates in line with other salvage options. While early MRI response at the treated site is common, this does not preclude subsequent biochemical failure.

Ultrahypofractionated Radiotherapy for Localised Prostate Cancer: How Far Can We Go?

Following adoption of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy as a standard for localised prostate cancer, ultrahypofractioned radiotherapy delivered in five to seven fractions is rapidly being embraced by clinical practice and international guidelines. However, the question remains: how low can we go? Can radiotherapy for prostate cancer be delivered in fewer than five fractions? The current review summarises the evidence that radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer can be safely and effectively delivered in fewer than five fractions using high dose rate brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy. We also discuss important lessons learned from the single-fraction high dose rate brachytherapy experience.

Utilization of brachytherapy in Quebec, Canada

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite the excellent clinical outcomes from brachytherapy treatments compared with other modalities and the low associated costs, there have been reports of a decline in utilization of brachytherapy. The aim of this study was to investigate in detail the trend in utilization of brachytherapy in the province of Québec, Canada, from 2011 to 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All radiotherapy clinics in the province of Quebec, and among these the clinics that provide brachytherapy treatments, were identified. This observational retrospective cohort study involved analysis of data compiled by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux du Québec for the period of 2011 to end of 2019 on all brachytherapy procedures performed in the province of Quebec. Time series graphs were used to describe the number of high dose rate (HDR) and low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy treatments during the studied time period. Statistical analysis was conducted using R statistical software.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2019, 12 hospitals in the province of Québec provided radiotherapy treatments, and all of them offered brachytherapy services. The median annual number of brachytherapy sessions was 4413 (range 3930-4829). HDR brachytherapy represented over 90% of all brachytherapy treatments throughout the study period. Significant changes over time were observed in the number of treatments: at least 5% change was seen only for the two most common subtypes of brachytherapy, HDR interstitial and HDR intracavitary, with an increase of 9.6% and a decrease of 9.2%, respectively. The use of other subtypes of brachytherapy (HDR-plesiotherapy, LDR-interstitial, LDR-intracavitary, LDR-eye plaque) was stable between 2011 and 2019, with ≤ 2.5% variation.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates an overall steady use of brachytherapy between 2011 and 2019 in Quebec. Brachytherapy offers numerous advantages for the treatment of diverse cancer sites. Although more sophisticated external beam radiotherapy treatments have emerged in the last decades, the precision and cost-effectiveness of brachytherapy remain unbeaten. To ensure the continued use and availability of brachytherapy, governments must put in place policies and regulations to that effect. Training and exposure of future health care professionals to brachytherapy within Quebec and Canada is essential to provide all patients the same access to this life saving modality.

Does the sequence of high-dose rate brachytherapy boost and IMRT for prostate cancer impact early toxicity outcomes? Results from a single institution analysis

•

The optimal sequence of HDR-BT boost and EBRT for prostate cancer is unclear.

•

We compared early toxicity based on the timing of HDR-BT boost.

•

The timing of HDR-BT was not based on any specific patient or clinical factors.

•

We found no difference in early GI/GU toxicity between the two groups.

•

Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate late toxicity and long-term disease control.

Background

We present the first report comparing early toxicity outcomes with high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost upfront versus intensity modulated RT (IMRT) upfront combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as definitive management for intermediate risk or higher prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials

We reviewed all non-metastatic prostate cancer patients who received HDR-BT boost from 2014 to 2019. HDR-BT boost was offered to patients with intermediate-risk disease or higher. ADT use and IMRT target volume was based on NCCN risk group. IMRT dose was typically 45 Gy in 25 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles ± pelvic lymph nodes. HDR-BT dose was 15 Gy in 1 fraction, delivered approximately 3 weeks before or after IMRT. The sequence was based on physician preference. Biochemical recurrence was defined per ASTRO definition. Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicity was graded per CTCAE v5.0. Pearson Chi-squared test and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare toxicity rates. P-value < 0.05 was significant.

Results

Fifty-eight received HDR-BT upfront (majority 2014–2016) and 57 IMRT upfront (majority 2017–2018). Median follow-up was 26.0 months. The two cohorts were well-balanced for baseline patient/disease characteristics and treatment factors. There were differences in treatment sequence based on the year in which patients received treatment. Overall, rates of grade 3 or higher GI or GU toxicity were <1%. There was no significant difference in acute or late GI or GU toxicity between the two groups.

Conclusion

We found no significant difference in GI/GU toxicity in intermediate-risk or higher prostate cancer patients receiving HDR-BT boost upfront versus IMRT upfront combined with ADT. These findings suggest that either approach may be reasonable. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate late toxicity and long-term disease control.