High and intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with three-dimensional computed tomography-guided brachytherapy: 2-8-year follow-up

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer with seminal vesicle involvement (T3b): A multicentric retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

No study has reported clinical results of external-beam radiotherapy specifically for T3b prostate cancer. The possibility of escalating the dose to the involved seminal vesicles (ISV) while respecting the dose constraints in the organs at risk is thus so far not clearly demonstrated. The objective of the study was to analyze the dose distribution and the clinical outcome in a large series of patients who received IMRT for T3b prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included all patients who received IMRT and androgen deprivation therapy for T3b prostate cancer, between 2008 and 2017, in six French institutions, with available MRI images and dosimetric data.

RESULTS

A total of 276 T3b patients were included. The median follow-up was 26 months. The median (range) prescribed doses (Gy) to the prostate and to the ISV were 77 (70-80) and 76 (46-80), respectively. The dose constraint recommendations were exceeded in less than 12% of patients for the rectum and the bladder. The 5-year risks of biochemical and clinical recurrences and cancer-specific death were 24.8%, 21.7%, and 10.3%, respectively. The 5-year risks of local, pelvic lymph node, and metastatic recurrences were 6.4%, 11.3%, and 15%, respectively. The number of involved lymph nodes (≤ 2 or ≥ 3) on MRI was the only significant prognostic factor in clinical recurrence (HR 9.86) and death (HR 2.78). Grade ≥ 2 acute and 5-year late toxicity rates were 13.2% and 12% for digestive toxicity, and 34% and 31.5% for urinary toxicity, respectively. The dose to the pelvic lymph node and the age were predictive of late digestive toxicity.

CONCLUSION

IMRT for T3b prostate cancer allows delivery of a curative dose in the ISV, with a moderate digestive toxicity but a higher urinary toxicity. Lymph node involvement increases the risk of recurrence and death.

Patterns of Care for Brachytherapy in Europe, in Spain and Italy: Comparative Results

Aims and Background

The aim of the study was to compare the facilities for brachytherapy in two similar countries, as are Italy and Spain. This survey reports the differences in the use of brachytherapy in these countries.

Methods

The data regarding brachytherapy was obtained in 2002 by means of a specially designed web site, because Internet allowed the access to the questionnaire in an easy and safe way. In the first edition of the survey, only the countries in which more than 50% of its centers had completed the questionnaire were included. Among these countries there were Italy and Spain.

Results

Data was available in 127 centers in Italy and 72 centers in Spain, where 35 and 39, respectively, provided brachytherapy. Although both countries had a similar number of radiotherapy patients and the average number of radiotherapy patients per center was similar in both countries (P = 0.29), there were several differences related to brachytherapy. For instance, the mean number of radiation oncologists regularly performing brachytherapy per center was higher in Spain (P = 0.001). There were also differences in the average number of patients per center in the following tumor sites: breast (P <0.001) and gynaecological (P <0.001). In fact, the average number of patients per center who were treated with brachytherapy in these tumor sites was higher in Spain than Italy.

Conclusions

Although the estimated workload of the radiation oncologists, physicists and radiation technologists was higher in Spain, no statistically significant differences were found in the average number of patients per center for the following tumor sites: bronchus, head and neck, intracoronary, esophagus, prostate, rectum and skin. Several differences in the use of the brachytherapy procedures applied were also found.

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review

Low-dose rate brachytherapy has become a mainstream treatment option for men diagnosed with prostate cancer because of excellent long-term treatment outcomes in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients. To a great extend due to patient lead advocacy for minimally invasive treatment options, high-quality prostate implants have become widely available in the US, Europe, and Japan. High-dose-rate (HDR) afterloading brachytherapy in the management of localised prostate cancer has practical, physical, and biological advantages over low-dose-rate seed brachytherapy. There are no free live sources used, no risk of source loss, and since the implant is a temporary procedure following discharge no issues with regard to radioprotection use of existing facilities exist. Patients with localized prostate cancer may benefit from high-dose-rate brachytherapy, which may be used alone in certain circumstances or in combination with external-beam radiotherapy in other settings. The purpose of this paper is to present the essentials of brachytherapies techniques along with the most important studies that support their effectiveness in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Overview of brachytherapy resources in Europe: A survey of patterns of care study for brachytherapy in Europe

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Patterns of Care for Brachytherapy in Europe (PCBE) study is aimed at establishing a detailed information system on brachytherapy throughout Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire was web-based and the analysis used data from each radiotherapy department with brachytherapy. There were three groups: Group I with 19 countries (15 initial European Community (EC) countries plus Iceland, Monaco, Norway and Switzerland -EC+4-), Group II with 10 countries (New European Community countries -NEC-) and Group III with 14 countries (Other European Countries -OEC-).

RESULTS

In the European area there are 36 of 43 countries (85%) which achieved data collection from at least 50% of centres, and were included in the analysis. The tumour site that had the largest number of treated patients was gynaecological tumours. Several variations have been found in the mean number of patients treated per consultant radiation oncologist and physicist; and in the proportion of brachytherapy patients with gynaecology, prostate and breast tumours, by country and by European area. The provided data showed that the average number of brachytherapy patients per centre increased by 10% between 1997 and 2002.

CONCLUSIONS

A European wide evaluation of brachytherapy practice using a web-based questionnaire is feasible and that there is considerable variation in both patterns of practice and available resources.