Clinical outcome in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy and high dose-rate iridium 192 brachytherapy boost: a 6-year follow-up

High levels of health-related quality of life five years after curative treatment of prostate cancer with HDR-brachytherapy and external beam radiation

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in men with prostate cancer treated 2002-2008 with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) combined with high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT), Cohort A, and to compare these data with age-adjusted normative data. In addition, differences in HRQoL following adjustments of the brachytherapy technique in 2001 were investigated by comparing Cohort A with men treated at the same clinic from 1998-2000, Cohort B.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Cohort A: 1495 men treated with EBRT 2 Gy to 50 Gy and 2 fractions of 10 Gy HDRBT at a single centre, 2002-2008, still alive at five years. As part of routine follow-up, the patients responded to the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR-25 questionnaires. Cohort B: HRQoL data was retrieved from an earlier study from the original article.

RESULTS

In Cohort A, 1046 (70%) men completed the questionnaires at five years, median age 66 years. In general, HRQoL mean scores were high and similar to Swedish age-matched normative data. Concerning disease-specific HRQoL, low levels of bowel and urinary problems were reported, in contrast to a substantial effect on sexual functioning. 'No' or 'A little' problems with faecal incontinence and urinary incontinence were reported by 98% and 93% of patients, respectively. The corresponding figure for sexual functioning was 39%. A difference in the frequency of nocturia in favour of Cohort A was the only statistically significant difference between Cohort A and B found in general and disease-specific HRQOL (p = 0.03), despite modifications in the brachytherapy procedure introduced in 2001.

CONCLUSION

Long-term general HRQoL was rated high and comparable to an aged-matched reference population five years after treatment with combined radiotherapy. Disease-specific HRQoL was still affected, foremost in the sexual domain.

High rate of local control and cure at 10 years after treatment of prostate cancer with external beam radiotherapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy: a single centre experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To analyse the cumulative incidence of any failure (AF), prostate cancer-specific failure (PCSF), any death (AD), prostate cancer-specific death (PCSD), and local control in 2387 men with prostate cancer (PC), consecutively treated with combined high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) from 1998 to 2010.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution study of men with localised PC. The mean age was 66 years and 54.7% had high-risk PC according to the Cambridge prognostic group (CPG) classification. The treatment was delivered as EBRT (2 Gy × 25) and HDRBT (10 Gy × 2) with combined androgen blockade (CAB). The median follow-up was 10.2 years.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of PCSD at 10 years was 5% [CI 95% 0.04-0.06]. The 10 years PCSD per risk group were: low (L) 0.4%, intermediate favourable (IF) 1%, intermediate unfavourable (IU) 4.3%, high-risk favourable (HF) 5.8%, and high-risk unfavourable (HU) 13.9%. The PCSF rate at 10 years was 16.5% [CI 95% 0.15-0.18]. The PCSF per risk group at 10 years were: L 2.5%, IF 5.5%, IU 15.9%, HF 15.6%, and HU 38.99%. PCSF occurred in 399 men, of whom 15% were found to have local failure. The estimated frequency of local failure in the entire cohort was 1.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

HDRBT combined with EBRT is an effective treatment with long-term overall survival and excellent local control for patients with PC. The low rate of local recurrence among men with relapse suggests that these patients were micro metastasised at time of treatment, which calls for improved methods to detect disseminated disease.

Complications and side effects of high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

To describe technical challenges and complications encountered during and after high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and review management of these complications.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The authors performed a systematic review of the literature on toxicities encountered after prostate HDR-BT +/- external beam radiotherapy. A total of 397 studies were identified, of which 64 were included. A focused review of literature regarding the management of acute and late toxicities also performed.

RESULTS

Most acute toxicities include grade 0-2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Overall, Grade 3+ Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity after HDR-BT was low [genitourinary: 0-1%; gastrointestinal 0-3%]. Rates of fistula formation were <1%, and radiation cystitis/proctitis were <14% and more commonly reported in cohorts treated with HDR-BT boost and external beam radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

HDR-BT both as monotherapy or combined with external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer is well tolerated. Serious complications are rare.

An audit of high dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment planning at six Swedish clinics

Purpose

High dose-rate prostate brachytherapy has been implemented in Sweden in the late 1980s and early 1990s in six clinics using the same schedule: 20 Gy in two fractions combined with 50 Gy in 25 fractions with external beam radiation therapy. Thirty years have passed and during these years, various aspects of the treatment process have developed, such as ultrasound-guided imaging and treatment planning system. An audit was conducted, including a questionnaire and treatment planning, which aimed to gather knowledge about treatment planning methods in Swedish clinics.

Material and methods

A questionnaire and a treatment planning case (non-anatomical images) were sent to six Swedish clinics, in which high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy is performed. Treatment plans were compared using dosimetric indices and equivalent 2 Gy doses (EQD₂). Treatment planning system report was used to compare dwell positions and dwell times.

Results

For all the clinics, the planning aim for the target was 10.0 Gy, but the volume to receive the dose differed from 95% to 100%. Dose constraints for organs at risk varied with up to 2 Gy. The dose to 90% of target volume ranged from 10.0 Gy to 11.1 Gy, equivalent to 26.0 Gy EQD₂ and 31.3 Gy EQD₂, respectively. Dose non-homogeneity ratio differed from 0.18 to 0.32 for clinical target volume (CTV) in treatment plans and conformity index ranged from 0.52 to 0.59 for CTV.

Conclusions

Dose constraints for the organs at risk are showing a larger variation than that reflected in compared treatments plans. In all treatment plans in our audit, at least 10 Gy was administered giving a total treatment of 102 Gy EQD₂, which is in the upper part of the prescription doses published in the GEC/ESTRO recommendations.

A Brief Review of Low-Dose Rate (LDR) and High-Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy Boost for High-Risk Prostate

For patients with unfavorable or high-risk prostate cancer, dose escalated radiation therapy leads to improved progression free survival but attempts to deliver increased dose by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone can be limited by late toxicities to nearby genitourinary and gastrointestinal organs at risk. Brachytherapy is a method to deliver dose escalation in conjunction with EBRT with a potentially improved late toxicity profile and improved prostate cancer related outcomes. At least three randomized controlled trials have demonstrated improved biochemical control with the addition of either low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy to EBRT, although only ASCENDE-RT compared brachytherapy to dose-escalated EBRT but did report an over 50% improvement in biochemical failure with a LDR boost. Multiple single institution and comparative research series also support the use of a brachytherapy boost in the DE-EBRT era and demonstrate excellent prostate cancer specific outcomes. Despite improved oncologic outcomes with a brachytherapy boost in the high-risk setting, the utilization of both LDR, and HDR brachytherapy use is declining. The acute genitourinary toxicities when brachytherapy boost is combined with EBRT, particularly a LDR boost, are of concern in comparison to EBRT alone. HDR brachytherapy boost has many physical properties inherent to its rapid delivery of a large dose which may reduce acute toxicities and also appeal to the radiobiology of prostate cancer. We herein review the evidence for use of either LDR or HDR brachytherapy boost for high-risk prostate cancer and summarize comparisons between the two treatment modalities.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

Comorbidity as a predictor of overall survival in prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy combined with HDR brachytherapy boosts

BACKGROUND

The risk stratification currently applied prior to curative treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC) does not take into account comorbidity or age. Therefore, we investigated the impact of comorbidity on overall survival (OS) in PC patients treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

At a single center, 611 consecutive patients diagnosed with localized PC from 1998 to 2004 underwent definitive EBRT (50 Gy) and HDR brachytherapy boosts (2 × 10 Gy) combined with neoadjuvant total androgen blockade. Comorbidity was assessed with the Charlson comorbidity score. The impact of risk factors on OS and disease-free survival (DFS) was calculated using Cox proportional hazard ratios. Risk groups were defined as follows: low-risk PC: PSA <10, WHO grade 1 and T stage 1; high-risk PC: PSA >20 and/or WHO grade 3 and/or T stage 3a; intermediate-risk PC representing patients who did not fit either the low- or high-risk PC group.

RESULTS

Mean age in the study cohort was 66.4 years, and 51% of the patients reported some degree of comorbidity. Divided into risk groups 8.2% were categorized as low-risk, 64% as intermediate-risk and 27.8% as high-risk PC. Overall 10-year survival was 72.2%, and 89% of the patients were relapse-free. In the univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazard ratios, age, comorbidity and T stage were statistically significant predictors of OS: hazard ratios 1.56, 1.44 and 1.2 (p-values .002, .04 and .05), respectively. WHO grade, PSA at diagnosis, T stage and comorbidity were also significant predictors of DFS (p-values .0001, .0001, .009 and .003, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Comorbidity assessed with the Charlson score predicts OS in patients with localized PC treated with curative intent using combined EBRT and HDR brachytherapy boost, and should be considered when making decisions before radical treatment.

[Focal dose escalation in the treatment of prostate cancer : Long-term results of HDR brachytherapy]

BACKGROUND

We prospectively examined the effect and the safety of intensity-modulated HDR brachytherapy (IMBT) with focal dose escalation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 139 patients undergoing primary therapy for prostate cancer and 11 patients with recurrence were included. Data analysis focused on the following factors: date of primary diagnosis, Gleason score, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, PSA nadir, volume of the prostate in the transrectal ultrasound, biopsy of the prostate gland, androgen deprivation, chemotherapy, uroflowmetry, pre- and postoperative post-void residual urine (PVR), number of the needles in the prostate lobes and analysis of follow-up data.

RESULTS

In the primary therapy group, 87.6 % of the patients had a PSA of 0-4 ng/ml at the time of follow-up, while in the recurrence group 81.8 % of patients were within this range. Overall, 55.8 % of patients in the primary group had a PSA nadir under 0.1 ng/ml, 37.2 % under 1 ng/ml, 5.8 % under 5 ng/ml and 1.2 % (1 patient) over 5 ng/ml. In the recurrence group, 100 % had a PSA nadir under 0.1 ng/dl. Fifty patients of the primary group reported grade 1 toxicity (Common Toxicity Criteria): 29 localized to the bladder and 21 to the rectum. Seventeen patients had grade 2 toxicity of the bladder and 1 patient had grade 3 toxicity of the bladder. Finally there was one grade 4 toxicity due to perforation of the sigmoid colon. In the recurrence group, 3 patients with grade 1 toxicity were observed (2 bladder and 1 bowl). Also 3 patients had grade 2 toxicity of the bladder, 1 patient had a grade 3 bladder toxicity and 1 patient had grade 4 toxicity due to bowl fistula. There were no grade 5 toxicities.

CONCLUSION

The modifications of the "Kiel method" with focal dose escalation was proven as effective in locally advanced prostate carcinoma and in local recurrences of the disease with low level toxicity.

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.

Dose escalation with external beam radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy in high and very high risk prostate cancer: Comparison of two consecutive high-dose-rate schemes

PURPOSE

To compare rectal toxicity, urinary toxicity, and nadir+2 PSA relapse-free survival (bRFS) in two consecutive Phase II protocols of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy used at the authors institution from 2001 to 2012.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high risk and very high risk prostate cancer enrolled in studies HDR4 (2001-2007, n = 183) and HDR2 (2007-2012, n = 56) were analyzed. Patients received minipelvis external beam radiation therapy/intensity-modulated external radiotherapy to 54 Gy and 2 years of androgen blockade along with HDR brachytherapy. HDR4 protocol consisted of four 4.75 Gy fractions delivered in 48 hours; the HDR2 protocol delivered two 9.5 Gy fractions in 24 hours. Average 2-Gy equivalent dose (α/β = 1.2) prostate D90 doses for the HDR4 and HDR2 groups were 89.8 Gy and 110.5 Gy, respectively (p = 0.0001). Both groups were well balanced regarding risk factors. Prior transurethral resection of the prostate was more frequent in the HDR2 group (p = 0.001).

RESULTS

After a median followup of 7.4 years (range, 2-11.2), there was no difference in adverse grade ≥ 2 rectal events (HDR4 = 10.4% vs. HDR2 = 12.5%; p = ns) or grade ≥3 (HDR4 = 2.2% vs. HDR2 = 3.6%; p = ns). No differences in urinary grade ≥2 adverse events (HDR4 = 23% vs. HDR2 = 26.8%; p = ns) or grade ≥3 (HDR4 = 7.7% vs. HDR2 = 8.9%; p = ns) were detected. The 7-year bRFS for HDR4 and HDR2 protocols was 88.7% and 87.8%, respectively (p = ns).

CONCLUSIONS

HDR4 and HDR2 protocols produce similar results in terms of toxicity and bRFS at the intermediate time point of 7 years.

Do theoretical potential and advanced technology justify the use of high-dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer?

Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), involving implantation of radioactive seeds into the prostate, is an established monotherapy for most low-risk and select intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) is an advanced technology theorized to be more advantageous than LDR-BT from a radiobiological and radiophysics perspective, to the patient himself, and in terms of resource allocation. Studies of HDR-BT monotherapy have encouraging results in terms of biochemical control, patient survival, treatment toxicity and erectile preservation. However, there are still certain limitations that preclude recommending HDR-BT monotherapy for prostate cancer outside the setting of a clinical trial. HDR-BT monotherapy should be considered experimental at present.

Combining theoretical potential and advanced technology in high-dose rate brachytherapy boost therapy for prostate cancer

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with brachytherapy (BT) is an attractive treatment option for select patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Either low- or high-dose rate BT may be combined with EBRT ('LDR-BT boost,' 'HDR-BT boost,' respectively). HDR-BT boost has potential theoretical benefits over LDR-BT boost or external beam radiation therapy monotherapy in terms of radiobiology, radiophysics and patient convenience. Based on prospective studies in this review, freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates at 5 years for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients have generally been 85-100%, 68-97%, 63-85%, respectively; late Radiotherapy and Oncology Group Grades 3 and 4 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities are seen in <8% of patients. HDR-BT boost is now a relatively well-established treatment modality for certain intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer patients, though limitations exist in drawing conclusions from the currently published studies.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy combined with long-term hormonal therapy for high-risk and very high-risk prostate cancer: outcomes after 5-year follow-up

The purpose of this study was to report the outcomes of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria-defined high-risk (HR) and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer. Data from 178 HR (n = 96, 54%) and VHR (n = 82, 46%) prostate cancer patients who underwent (192)Ir-HDR brachytherapy and hypofractionated EBRT with long-term ADT between 2003 and 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. The mean dose to 90% of the planning target volume was 6.3 Gy/fraction of HDR brachytherapy. After five fractions of HDR treatment, EBRT with 10 fractions of 3 Gy was administered. All patients initially underwent ≥ 6 months of neoadjuvant ADT, and adjuvant ADT was continued for 36 months after EBRT. The median follow-up was 61 months (range, 25-94 months) from the start of radiotherapy. The 5-year biochemical non-evidence of disease, freedom from clinical failure and overall survival rates were 90.6% (HR, 97.8%; VHR, 81.9%), 95.2% (HR, 97.7%; VHR, 92.1%), and 96.9% (HR, 100%; VHR, 93.3%), respectively. The highest Radiation Therapy Oncology Group-defined late genitourinary toxicities were Grade 2 in 7.3% of patients and Grade 3 in 9.6%. The highest late gastrointestinal toxicities were Grade 2 in 2.8% of patients and Grade 3 in 0%. Although the 5-year outcome of this tri-modality approach seems favorable, further follow-up is necessary to validate clinical and survival advantages of this intensive approach compared with the standard EBRT approach.

Prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): multidisciplinary standpoint

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in men and a leading cause of death. Accurate assessment is a prerequisite for optimal clinical management and therapy selection of prostate cancer. There are several parameters and nomograms to differentiate between patients with clinically insignificant disease and patients in need of treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a technique which provides more detailed anatomical images due to high spatial resolution, superior contrast resolution, and multiplanar capability. State-of-the-art MRI techniques, such as diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI), dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), improve interpretation of prostate cancer imaging. In this article, we review the major role of MRI in the advanced management of prostate cancer to noninvasively improve tumor staging, biologic potential, treatment planning, therapy response, local recurrence, and to guide target biopsy for clinical suspected cancer with previous negative biopsy. Finally, future challenges and opportunities in prostate cancer management in the area of functional MRI are discussed as well.

High dose rate prostate brachytherapy: an overview of the rationale, experience and emerging applications in the treatment of prostate cancer

The technological advances in real-time ultrasound image guidance for high dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy places this treatment modality at the forefront of innovation in radiotherapy. This review article will explore the rationale for HDR brachytherapy as a highly conformal method of dose delivery and safe dose escalation to the prostate, in addition to the particular radiobiological advantages it has over low dose rate and external beam radiotherapy. The encouraging outcome data and favourable toxicity profile will be discussed before looking at emerging applications for the future and how this procedure will feature alongside stereotactic radiosurgery.

Conformal radiotherapy plus high dose rate brachytherapy prostate boost in patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: our experience in Asian males

Purpose: Recent studies have shown increased prostate cancer control rates with radiation dose escalation. Herein the experience of dose escalation by high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) adjunct to the three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for prostate cancer is presented.

Patients and methods: During the period between August 2005 and July 2007, patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer were treated with 3D-CRT of dose 46Gy ÷ 23 fractions to whole pelvis followed by: Arm A (102 patients): prostate boost with HDR-BT 14 Gy × 2 sessions and Arm B (103 patients): prostate boost via 3D-CRT of dose 26 Gy ÷ 13 fractions. Primary objectives were overall survival (OS), distant metastases free survival (DMFS) and PSA progression free survival (PPFS) rates. Secondary objectives were the toxicity profile and post-radiation histopathological response.

Results: At median follow up of 3.5 years, PPFS, DMFS and OS rates were; 97.8% versus 89.0% (p = 0.009), 98.1% versus 93.6% (p = 0.13) and 98.8% versus 91.6% (p = 0.24) in Arm A and Arm B. respectively. Grade 3 or 4 delayed genitourinary toxicities occurred in 2% and 4.8% of patients in Arm A and Arm B, respectively. Delayed grade 3 and 4 gastrointestinal toxicities were seen in 2% and 3.9% of patients in Arm A and Arm B, respectively. The post-radiation prostate biopsies were negative in 14/17(82.3%) and 9/15 (60%) in Arm A and Arm B, respectively.

Conclusion: 3D-CRT combined with HDR-BT resulted in better PPFS and lower morbidity than 3DCRT alone for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.

American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

A well-established body of literature supports the use of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer. Most of the articles describe HDR as a boost with adjuvant external beam radiation, but there is a growing experience with HDR monotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The American Brachytherapy Society has convened a group of expert practitioners and physicists to develop guidelines for the use of HDR in the management of prostate cancer. This involved an extensive literature review and input from an expert panel.

RESULTS

Despite a wide variation in doses and fractionation reported, HDR brachytherapy provides biochemical control rates of 85-100%, 81-100%, and 43-93% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancers, respectively. Severe toxicity is rare, with most authors reporting less than 5% Grade 3 or higher toxicity. Careful attention to patient evaluation for appropriate patient selection, meticulous technique, treatment planning, and delivery are essential for successful treatment.

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes for HDR are excellent, with high rates of biochemical control, even for high-risk disease, with low morbidity. HDR monotherapy, both for primary treatment and salvage, are promising treatment modalities.

Phase I/II trial of single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy-boosted hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE

A Phase I/II protocol was conducted to examine the toxicity and efficacy of the combination of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a single-fraction high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy implant.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From 2001 through 2006, 26 consecutive patients were treated on the trial. The primary objective was to demonstrate a high rate of completion without experiencing a treatment-limiting toxicity. Eligibility was limited to patients with T stage ≤2b, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20, and Gleason score ≤7. Treatment began with a single HDR fraction of 6Gy to the entire prostate and 9Gy to the peripheral zone, followed by IMRT optimized to deliver in 28 fractions with a normalized total dose of 70Gy. Patients received 50.4Gy to the pelvic lymph node. The prostate dose (IMRT and HDR) resulted in an average biologic equivalent dose >128Gy (α/β=3). Patients whose pretreatment PSA was ≥10ng/mL, Gleason score 7, or stage ≥T2b received short-term androgen ablation.

RESULTS

Median followup was 53 months (9-68 months). There were no biochemical failures by either the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology or the Phoenix definitions. The median nadir PSA was 0.32ng/mL. All the 26 patients completed the treatment as prescribed. The rate of Grade 3 late genitourinary toxicity was 3.8% consisting of a urethral stricture. There was no other Grade 3 or 4 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-fraction HDR-boosted IMRT is a safe effective method of dose escalation for localized prostate cancer.

Influence of catheters on predicted tumour control probability and severity of acute genitourinary toxicity during high-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost

Purpose: High-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) boost is an effective method for dose escalation when treating prostate cancer. Optimal number and location of catheters play key role in radiation dose delivery. We studied the impact of catheters and associated trauma on the dose uncertainties and urethral toxicity.

Methods and Materials: Between July 2008 to August 2009, 50 patients with prostate cancer were treated with 46 Gy of external irradiation of whole pelvis (2 Gy per fraction) and two HDR brachytherapy fractions (each 14 Gy) at the end of 10 fractions of external beam. All brachytherapy implants were planned using real-time, ultrasound-based planning system. Variables were prostate and urethral volumes, number of catheters and their mean distance from base of bladder and dose volume histogram parameters. All data were collected during first implant only. The toxicities were graded according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Toxicity Criteria. Statistical analysis was done on SPSS version 17.0.

Results: The mean number of catheters implanted was 12.38 (8–19), and number of attempts per needle to achieve desired position was 1.6 (range = 0–5). Mean distance between the catheters tips to contrast filled bladder was 3.2 mm (1–8 mm) after the adjustment. Distances >5 mm showed lower doses to prostate and lower predicted tumour control probability (TCP) (p < 0.01). No correlation was found between numbers of catheters implanted, attempts per catheter and severity of acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity. Significant correlation was found between severity of acute GU toxicity and urethral V130, V150 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Dose decline and subsequently lower TCP were seen for the greater distances between the needles and bladder. Acute GU toxicity increased with higher urethral, but severity of acute GU toxicity does not increase with increase in prostate/urethral volumes, number of catheters needles and attempts.

Curative radiation therapy in prostate cancer

Radiotherapy has experienced an extremely rapid development in recent years. Important improvements such as the introduction of multileaf collimators and computed tomography (CT)-based treatment planning software have enabled three dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3DCRT). The development of treatment planning systems and technology for brachytherapy has been very rapid as well. Development of accelerators with integrated on-board imaging equipment and technology, for example image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) has further improved the precision with reduced margins to adjacent normal tissues. This has, in turn, led to the possibility to administer even higher doses to the prostate than previously. Although radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy have been used for the last decades as curative treatment modalities, still there are no randomized trials published comparing these two options. Outcome data show that the two treatment modalities are highly comparable when used for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy as boost for organ-confined prostate cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) boost following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for advanced localized prostate cancer may reduce toxicity while escalating the dose. We present preliminary biochemical control and urinary, rectal and sexual toxicities for 73 patients treated with SBRT as a boost to EBRT. Forty-one intermediate- and 32 high-risk localized prostate cancer patients received 45 Gy EBRT with SBRT boost. Twenty-eight patients (38.3%) received a total SBRT boost dose of 18 Gy (3 fractions of 6 Gy), 28 patients (38.3%) received 19.5 Gy (3 fractions of 6.5 Gy), and 17 patients (23.2%) received 21 Gy (3 fractions of 7 Gy). Toxicity was assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group urinary and rectal toxicity scale. Biochemical failure was assessed using the Phoenix definition. The median follow-up was 33 months (range, 22 - 43 months). Less than 7% Grade II and no higher grade acute toxicities occurred. To date, one Grade III and no Grade IV late toxicities occurred. For the 97% of patients with 24 months minimum follow-up, 71.8% achieved a PSA nadir threshold of 0.5 ng/mL. Three intermediate-risk and seven high-risk biochemical failures occurred; one high-risk patient died of his cancer. Three-year actuarial biochemical control rates were 89.5% and 77.7% for intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. SBRT boost for prostate cancer treatment is safe and feasible with minimal acute toxicity. At 33 months late toxicity and biochemical control are promising. Long-term durability of these findings remains to be established.

Moderate dose escalation with single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for clinically localized intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: 5-year outcome of the first 100 consecutively treated patients

PURPOSE

To analyze the clinical outcome and toxicity data of the first 100 consecutive patients treated with a single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Two-hundred eighty patients have been treated with HDR-BT boost for localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. Among these, the outcome and toxicity of the first 100 patients treated with a single HDR-BT fraction were assessed. A median dose of 60Gy EBRT was given to the prostate and vesicles. Interstitial HDR-BT of 10Gy was performed during the course of EBRT.

RESULTS

Median followup time was 61.5 months. The 5-year actuarial rates of overall survival, cause-specific survival, disease-free survival, and biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) for the entire cohort were 93.3%, 99.0%, 89.3%, and 85.5%, respectively. The 7-year actuarial rate of bNED was 84.2% for the intermediate-risk group and 81.6% for the high-risk group (p=0.8464). The 7-year actuarial rates of bNED for Grade 1, 2, and 3 tumors were 97.5%, 80.0%, and 67.1%, respectively. The 5-year probability for developing late Grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 2.1% and 14.4%, respectively. Grade 3 GU complications occurred significantly more frequently in patients with a history of preirradiation transurethral resection (29.1% vs. 8.8%; p=0.0047).

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year outcome after 60Gy EBRT plus a single fraction of 10Gy HDR-BT boost is encouraging. Preradiation transurethral resection significantly increases the risk of late severe GU complications.

Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT

PURPOSE

We report on a retrospective comparison of biochemical outcomes using an ultra-high dose of conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. a lower dose of IMRT combined with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy to increase the biologically effective dose of IMRT.

METHODS

Patients received IMRT of 86.4Gy (n=470) or HDR brachytherapy (21Gy in three fractions) followed by IMRT of 50.4Gy (n=160). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse was defined as PSA nadir+2. Median followup was 53 months for IMRT alone and 47 months for HDR.

RESULTS

The 5-year actuarial PSA relapse-free survival (PRFS) for HDR plus IMRT vs. ultra-high-dose IMRT were 100% vs. 98%, 98% vs. 84%, and 93% vs. 71%, for National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- (p=0.71), intermediate- (p<0.001), and high-risk (p=0.23) groups, respectively. Treatment (p=0.0006), T stage (p<0.0001), Gleason score (p<0.0001), pretreatment PSA (p=0.0037), risk group (p<0.0001), and lack of androgen-deprivation therapy (p=0.0005) were significantly associated with improved PRFS on univariate analysis. HDR plus IMRT vs. ultra-high-dose IMRT (p=0.0012, hazard ratio [HR]=0.184); age (p=0.0222, HR=0.965); and risk group (p<0.0001, HR=2.683) were associated with improved PRFS on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation of IMRT by adding HDR brachytherapy provided improved PRFS in the treatment of prostate cancer compared with ultra-high-dose IMRT, independent of risk group on multivariate analysis, with the most significant benefit for intermediate-risk patients.

Inhibition of p21-activated kinase 6 (PAK6) increases radiosensitivity of prostate cancer cells

BACKGROUND

p21-activated kinase 6 (PAK6) is a serine/threonine kinase belonging to the p21-activated kinase (PAK) family. We investigated the role of PAK6 in radiation-induced cell death in human prostate cancer cells.

METHODS

We used a short hairpin RNA (shRNA) strategy to stably knock down PAK6 in PC3 and DU145 cells. Radiation sensitivities were compared in PAK6 stably knockdown cells versus the scrambled shRNA-expressing control cells.

RESULTS

PAK6 mRNA and protein levels in PC3 and DU145 cells were upregulated upon exposure to 6 Gy of radiation. After irradiation, an increased percentage of apoptotic cells and cleaved caspase-3 levels were demonstrated in combination with a decrease in cell viability and a reduction in clonogenic survival in PAK6-knockdown cells. In addition, transfection with PAK6 shRNA blocked cells in a more radiosensitive G2-M phase and increased levels of DNA double-strand breaks. We further explored the potential mechanisms by which PAK6 mediates resistance to radiation-induced apoptosis. Inhibition of PAK6 caused a decrease in Ser(112) phosphorylation of BAD, a proapoptotic member of the Bcl-2 family, which led to enhanced binding of BAD to Bcl-2 and Bcl-X(L) and release of cytochrome c culminating into caspase activation and cell apoptosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of PAK6 inhibition and irradiation resulted in significantly decreased survival of prostate cancer cells. The underlying mechanisms by which targeting PAK6 may improve radiation response seem to be multifaceted, and involve alterations in cell cycle distribution and impaired DNA double-strand break repair as well as relieved BAD phosphorylation.

[Clinical research on prostate cancer detected in Tone central hospital--comparison of survival rates between patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in and outside screening system]

OBJECTIVES

We investigated a clinical features and outcomes of prostate cancer detected in Tone Central Hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated clinical features of 532 patients with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer detected in our hospital between 1987 and 2006. Furthermore, we compared survival rates of screen detected prostate cancer (SC group) with those of non-screen detected prostate cancer (NSC group) for 362 cases diagnosed with prostate cancer after 1999. 362 cases consist of 223 patients in SC group and 139 patients in NSC group.

RESULTS

Since 1987, the annual number of newly diagnosed patients has gradually increased and we recognized stage migration, a tendency toward an annual decrease in the incidence of stages A and D and an increase in that of stage B. The stage distributions of SC group (223 cases) and NSC group (139 cases), respectively, were 0.4% (1/223) and 9.4% (13/139) in stage A (p = 0.0011), 71.3% (159/223) and 31.7% (44/139) in stage B (p < 0.0001), 24.2% (54/223) and 23.7% (33/139) in stage C (p = 0.9182), and 4.0% (9/223) and 34.6% (46/223) in stage D (p < 0.0001). The 3, 5 and 7-year overall survival rates, respectively, were 95.6%, 92.7% and 84.1% in SC group, and 83.2%, 74.3% and 60.8% in NSC group (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the 3, 5 and 7-year cause-specific survival rates, respectively, were 98.8%, 97.3% and 95.9% in SC group, and 90.2%, 87.7% and 79.4% in NSC group (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical stage distribution has been changed between 1987 and 2006. Furthermore, overall and cause specific survival rates were better in screen detected prostate cancer than non-screen detected prostate cancer, because of increases in earlier stage of prostate cancer in SC group.

High dose rate radiation treatment of experimental intramuscular prostate carcinoma

PURPOSE

The Dunning R3327-MLL is a well established transplanted tumour line, and as such it makes a desirable model for evaluative studies of therapy. In the current study, the interstitial growth characteristics as well as the response of this tumour to a single fraction of high dose rate radiation is investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The in vitro response to radiation of the Dunning R3327-MLL was studied via a colony forming assay using a Cs-137 irradiator. In vitro radiosensitivity was determined on tumours implanted intramuscularly in the left gastrocnemius muscle of the rat and irradiated using an Ir-192 afterloader.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate a faster growth rate when compared to the reported subcutaneous growth rates. The Dunning R3327-MLL's radiosensitivity is comparable to that of late response tissues. The dose required to achieve a specific radiobiological response (the alpha:beta ratio) of the in vitro cell line is 2.4 Gy, whereas the ratio for the intramuscularly growing tumour was 0.99 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings signify the intramuscularly implanted Dunning R3327-MLL tumour model as a desirable model for the study of single fraction high dose rate radiation treatments.

The clinical significance and therapeutic implications of extraprostatic invasion

Invasion of the prostatic margin by cancer establishes a higher risk of disease progression and treatment failure depending upon its extent and other clinical factors. Pathological stage is the most important single prognostic indicator, but determined reliably only in patients having radical prostatectomy. Tumour beyond the prostatic margin or its invasion into the seminal vesicle defines the local stage category as T3, and when confirmed by pathological examination the extent of prostatic margin involvement has prognostic significance. Prediction of extraprostatic invasion may influence therapeutic decisions, but can be difficult to determine for the individual patient prior to treatment. In some individuals having radical prostatectomy, the finding of extraprostatic invasion is unsuspected, and fortunately for the majority of these men the treatment remains curative. On the other hand, when extraprostatic invasion is suspected prior to or at surgery, wide excision may be necessary to achieve negative surgical margins, with other factors contributing independently to the likelihood of subsequent progression. Radiotherapy is an effective alternative treatment for clinical stage T3 and high-risk clinically localized cancer. Recent technological advances and use of combination modality treatment with radiation and hormone manipulation have improved survival outcomes and reduced side-effects. Radiation also has its place as adjuvant treatment following radical prostatectomy in high-risk disease, or as salvage following PSA recurrence, with ongoing trials evaluating potential benefit and toxicity. For clinically localised stage T3 prostate cancer, treatment with surgery or radiotherapy may be highly effective, but multimodality interventions are increasingly being used for primary treatment where clinical assessment indicates that there would otherwise be a high risk for disease progression and therapeutic failure.

Intracellular signaling pathways regulating radioresistance of human prostate carcinoma cells

Radiation therapy plays an important role in the management of prostate carcinoma. However, the problem of radioresistance and molecular mechanisms by which prostate carcinoma cells overcome cytotoxic effects of radiation therapy remains to be elucidated. In order to investigate possible intracellular mechanisms underlying the prostate carcinoma recurrences after radiotherapy, we have established three radiation-resistant prostate cancer cell lines, LNCaP-IRR, PC3-IRR, and Du145-IRR derived from the parental LNCaP, PC3, and Du145 prostate cancer cells by repetitive exposure to ionizing radiation. LNCaP-IRR, PC3-IRR, and Du145-IRR cells (prostate carcinoma cells recurred after radiation exposure (IRR cells)) showed higher radioresistance and cell motility than parental cell lines. IRR cells exhibited higher levels of androgen and epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptors and activation of their downstream pathways, such as Ras-mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphatidyl inositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-Akt and Jak-STAT. In order to define additional mechanisms involved in the radioresistance development, we determined differences in the proteome profile of parental and IRR cells using 2-D DIGE followed by computational image analysis and MS. Twenty-seven proteins were found to be modulated in all three radioresistant cell lines compared to parental cells. Identified proteins revealed capacity to interact with EGF and androgen receptors related signal transduction pathways and were involved in the regulation of intracellular routs providing cell survival, increased motility, mutagenesis, and DNA repair. Our data suggest that radioresistance development is accompanied by multiple mechanisms, including activation of cell receptors and related downstream signal transduction pathways. Identified proteins regulated in the radioresistant prostate carcinoma cells can significantly intensify activation of intracellular signaling that govern cell survival, growth, proliferation, invasion, motility, and DNA repair. In addition, such analyses may be utilized in predicting cellular response to radiotherapy.

Is the use of a surrogate urethra an option in prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy?

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy and the dosimetric consequences of substituting a surrogate urethra assumed to be at the geometric center of the prostate, in place of the true urethra when using high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred prostate cancer patients treated with HDR brachytherapy constituted the study group. A pre-plan was made with the urethra visualized. The true urethra was defined, and a surrogate urethra was placed at the geometric center of the prostate. The distance between the two urethras was measured. The deviation was evaluated at the base, middle, and apex. To evaluate the dosimetric consequences for the true urethra when using a surrogate urethra, two different dose plans were made: one based on the true urethra and one based on the surrogate urethra. The dose-volume histograms for the true urethra were analyzed.

RESULTS

The deviation between the true urethra and the surrogate urethra was greatest at the base of the prostate. A statistically significant difference was seen between the dosimetric parameters for the true and the surrogate urethra when the dose plan was made using the surrogate urethra. In this situation the dose to the true urethra was increased above our defined maximum tolerance limit.

CONCLUSIONS

When using dose plans made according to a surrogate urethra the dose to the true urethra might be too high to be acceptable. If the true urethra is not visualized, severe damage could easily develop in a significant number of patients.