Randomized Trial Comparing Iridium Implant Plus External-Beam Radiation Therapy With External-Beam Radiation Therapy Alone in Node-Negative Locally Advanced Cancer of the Prostate

Overview of Radiation Therapy in the Management of Localized and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal is to describe the evolution of radiation therapy (RT) utilization in the management of localized and metastatic prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Long term data for a variety of hypofractionated definitive RT dose-fractionation schemes has matured, allowing patients and providers many standard-of-care options to choose from. Post-prostatectomy, adjuvant RT has largely been replaced by an early salvage approach. Multiparametric MRI and PSMA PET have enabled increasingly targeted RT delivery to the prostate and oligometastatic tumors. Areas of active investigation include determining the value of proton beam therapy and perirectal spacers, and optimally incorporate genomic tumor profiling and next generation hormonal therapies with RT in the curative setting. The use of radiation therapy to treat prostate cancer is rapidly evolving. In the coming years, there will be continued improvements in a variety of areas to enhance the value of RT in multidisciplinary prostate cancer management.

Long-Term Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Prostate Radiation Therapy With or Without High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost: Post Hoc Analysis of TROG 03.04 RADAR

PURPOSE

Adding high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) boost to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) improves biochemical control but may affect patient-reported quality of life (QOL). We sought to determine long-term QOL outcomes for EBRT+BT versus EBRT alone.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This was a post hoc analysis of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.04 Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy (TROG 03.04 RADAR) trial. Only patients who received 74 Gy conventionally fractionated EBRT (n = 260) or 46 Gy conventionally fractionated EBRT plus 19.5 Gy in 3 fractions high-dose-rate BT boost (n = 237) were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30) and prostate-specific QOL module (EORTC QLQ-PR25) questionnaires. We evaluated temporal changes in QOL scores, rates of symptom resolution, and the proportion of men who had decrements from baseline of >2 × the threshold for minimal clinically important change (2 × MCIC) for each domain.

RESULTS

At 5, 17, and 29 months after radiation therapy, the EBRT+BT group had 2.5 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.2; P < .001), 2.9 times (95% CI, 1.7-4.9; P < .001), and 2.6 times (95% CI, 1.4-4.6; P = .002) greater odds of reporting 2 × MCIC in urinary QOL score compared with EBRT. There were no differences beyond 29 months. EBRT+BT led to a slower rate of urinary QOL symptom score resolution up to 17 months after radiation therapy compared with EBRT (P < .001) but not at later intervals. In contrast, at the end of the radiation therapy period and at 53 months after radiation therapy, the EBRT+BT group had 0.65 times (95% CI, 0.44-0.96; P = .03) and 0.51 times (95% CI, 0.32-0.79; P = .003) the odds of reporting 2 × MCIC in bowel QOL symptom scores compared with EBRT. There were no significant differences in the rate of bowel QOL score resolution. There were no significant differences in global health status or sexual activity scores between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no persistent differences in patient-reported QOL measures between EBRT alone and EBRT+BT. BT boost does not appear to negatively affect long-term, patient-reported QOL.

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.

Enhancing Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) integration in prostate cancer: Insights for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and brachytherapy modalities

The utilization of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) in conjunction with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and Brachytherapy (BT) boost in prostate cancer treatment is a subject of ongoing debate and evolving clinical practice. While contemporary trends lean towards underutilizing ADT with these modalities, existing evidence suggests that its omission may lead to potentially inferior oncologic outcomes. Recommendations for ADT use should be patient-centric, considering individual risk profiles and comorbidities, with a focus on achieving optimal oncologic outcomes while minimizing potential side effects. Ongoing clinical trials, such as PACE-C, SPA, SHIP 0804, and SHIP 36B, are anticipated to provide valuable insights into the optimal use and duration of ADT in both SBRT and BT settings. Until new evidence emerges, it is recommended to initiate ADT for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, with a minimum duration of 6 months for unfavorable intermediate-risk patients and at least 12 months for those with high-risk characteristics. The decision to incorporate ADT into these radiation therapy modalities should be individualized, acknowledging the unique needs of each patient and emphasizing a tailored approach to achieve the best possible oncologic outcomes.

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.

Impact of Prostate Cancer-related Genitourinary Radiation Injury on Mental Health Diagnosis and Treatment: Assessment of 55,425 Men

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of low-grade radiation injury (LGRI) and high-grade radiation injury (HGRI) following prostate cancer treatment with mental health diagnoses and therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer who were treated with radiotherapy. Men were followed to assess for LGRI or HGRI using IBM MarketScan. Cohorts included: no injury (no-RI), LGRI, HGRI, and controls. Mental health diagnoses and related treatment (medication/therapy) were identified using ICD-10 codes, CPT codes, and national drug codes. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model from time of radiation to first instance of mental health diagnosis was modeled against injury group, age, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2020 we identified 55,425 men who received radiotherapy for prostate cancer. 22,879 (41.3%) experienced a LGRI while 4128 (7.4%) experienced a HGRI. Prior to radiation therapy, mental health diagnoses were equally distributed across cohorts (P > .05). Every marker of mental health showed a step-wise increase in incidence from no-RI to LGRI to HGRI except for alcohol abuse. Use of mental health medications and therapy visits were slightly more likely in the LGRI and HGRI groups prior to radiation, however, this difference was greatly increased postradiation therapy. LGRI (HR 1.38; P < .001) and HGRI (HR 2.1; P < .001) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of mental health diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

LGRI and HGRI following prostate cancer radiotherapy are associated with increased risk of mental health diagnosis, medication use, and therapy need compared to men who do not develop injuries. The most common mental health diagnoses were depression and anxiety.

Economical Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer is a common form of cancer among men worldwide. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations of prostate cancer treatment strategies.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases up to May 2021. English-language economic evaluation studies that compared intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), and radical prostatectomy (RP) were included. The studies were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The search yielded 1151 potentially relevant publications, which were screened based on the title and abstract. After the removal of duplicates, 55 studies remained, and 9 studies were screened in full text. Finally, textual data were analyzed manually using by-content analysis method.

RESULTS

All studies were cost-effective and evaluated quality-adjusted life year as the efficacy indicator. The studies were conducted from either payers' or health systems' perspectives, and the time horizon varied from 5 to 20 years. We included only full economic evaluation studies. The use of IMRT in comparison with 3DCRT was evaluated in 6 studies, based on which IMRT increased health and reduced side effects of treatment. According to incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) results, IMRT was more cost-effective than 3DCRT. Three studies evaluated the use of RP in comparison with radiotherapy. Based on these studies, radiotherapy was more effective than RP.

CONCLUSION

IMRT was found to be more cost-effective than 3DCRT in all 6 studies compared with the threshold. Radiotherapy was found to be more effective than RP. However, long-term clinical trial studies are needed to confirm these findings and to provide more definitive conclusions.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy versus as boost in unfavorable intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer: A matched-pair analysis

PURPOSE

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy (HDR-M), or as a boost combined with external beam radiotherapy (HDR-B), are both suitable treatments for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, data directly comparing these two approaches for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients are lacking.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with NCCN-defined UIR prostate cancer treated from 1997 to 2020 were identified in a prospectively maintained, single institution database. HDR-M and HDR-B patients were matched using three factors: age ±3 years; Gleason score (major and minor); and clinical T stage. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA nadir (nPSA) + 2. Available acute and chronic toxicities are additionally reported.

RESULTS

A total of 247 patients were identified (170 receiving HDR-B, 77 receiving HDR-M), ultimately yielding 70 matched pairs (140 patients) for inclusion. The median followup time was 5.2 years for HDR-M compared with 9.3 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). The two cohorts had similar calculated prostate EQD2 (HDR-B 118 Gy vs. HDR-M 115 Gy, p = 0.977). No significant differences in OS, CSS, DM, LRR, or FFBF were identified. HDR-B had an increased rate of any acute grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity and worse acute dysuria and diarrhea. Chronic gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective treatment option for selected patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and provides a more favorable gastrointestinal toxicity profile than HDR-B. Prospective trials should be conducted to refine the selection process for this heterogeneous cohort of patients.

Effect of Brachytherapy With External Beam Radiation Therapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0232 Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy (BT) (COMBO) compared with BT alone would improve 5-year freedom from progression (FFP) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

Men with prostate cancer stage cT1c-T2bN0M0, Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 or GS 7, and PSA < 10 were eligible. The COMBO arm was EBRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions) to prostate and seminal vesicles followed by BT prostate boost (110 Gy if 125-Iodine, 100 Gy if 103-Pd). BT arm was delivered to prostate only (145 Gy if 125-Iodine, 125 Gy if 103-Pd). The primary end point was FFP: PSA failure (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO] or Phoenix definitions), local failure, distant failure, or death.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighty-eight men were randomly assigned; 579 were eligible: 287 and 292 in COMBO and BT arms, respectively. The median age was 67 years; 89.1% had PSA < 10 ng/mL, 89.1% had GS 7, and 66.7% had T1 disease. There were no differences in FFP. The 5-year FFP-ASTRO was 85.6% (95% CI, 81.4 to 89.7) with COMBO compared with 82.7% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.1) with BT (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.26; Greenwood T P = .18). The 5-year FFP-Phoenix was 88.0% (95% CI, 84.2 to 91.9) with COMBO compared with 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.6) with BT (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.30; Greenwood T P = .19). There were no differences in the rates of genitourinary (GU) or GI acute toxicities. The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 2+ toxicity is 42.8% (95% CI, 37.0 to 48.6) for COMBO compared with 25.8% (95% CI, 20.9 to 31.0) for BT (P < .0001). The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 3+ toxicity is 8.2% (95% CI, 5.4 to 11.8) compared with 3.8% (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.5; P = .006).

CONCLUSION

Compared with BT, COMBO did not improve FFP for prostate cancer but caused greater toxicity. BT alone can be considered as a standard treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

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.

Comparison of four-year toxicities and local control of ultra-hypofractionated vs moderate-hypofractionated image guided prostate radiation with HDR brachytherapy boost: A phase I-II single institution trial

Purpose/Objectives

To analyze the long term efficacy and safety of an ultra-hypofractionated (UHF) radiation therapy prostate treatment regimen with HDR brachytherapy boost (BB) and compare it to moderate-hypofractionated regimens (MHF).

Materials/Methods

In this single arm, prospective monocentric study, 28 patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer were recruited in an experimental treatment arm of 25 Gy in 5 fractions plus a 15 Gy HDR BB. They were then compared to two historical control groups, treated with either 36 Gy in 12 fractions or 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions with a similar HDR BB. The control groups included 151 and 311 patients respectively. Patient outcomes were reported using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaires at baseline and at each follow-up visit.

Results

Median follow-up for the experimental arm was 48.5 months compared to 47 months and 60 months compared to the 36/12 and 37,5/15 groups respectively. The IPSS and EPIC scores did not demonstrate any significant differences in the gastrointestinal or genitourinary domains between the three groups over time. No biochemical recurrence occurred in the UHF arm as defined by the Phoenix criterion.

Conclusion

The UHF treatment scheme with HDR BB seems equivalent to standard treatment arms in terms of toxicities and local control. Randomized control trials with larger cohorts are ongoing and needed to further confirm our findings.

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.

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.

Dose-escalated radiotherapy for clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, active surveillance, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting. For external beam radiation therapy, oncological outcomes may be expected to improve as the dose of radiotherapy (RT) increases. However, radiation-mediated side effects on surrounding critical organs may also increase.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dose-escalated RT in comparison with conventional dose RT for curative treatment of clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases including trial registries and other sources of grey literature, up until 20 July 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of definitive RT in men with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma. RT was dose-escalated RT (equivalent dose in 2 Gy [EQD2] ≥ 74 Gy, lesser than 2.5 Gy per fraction) versus conventional RT (EQD2 < 74 Gy, 1.8 Gy or 2.0 Gy per fraction). Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of the evidence of RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with 5437 men in an analysis comparing dose-escalated RT versus conventional dose RT for the treatment of prostate cancer. The mean participant age ranged from 67 to 71 years. Almost all men had localized prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0). Primary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 5231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from prostate cancer of 4 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 1 fewer men per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 more) dying of prostate cancer in the dose-escalated RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe RT toxicity of grade 3 or higher late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4992 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 23 more men per 1000 (10 more to 40 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GI toxicity as 32 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in severe late genitourinary (GU) toxicity (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; I2 = 0%; 8 studies; 4962 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); 9 more men per 1000 (2 fewer to 23 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming severe late GU toxicity as 37 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Secondary outcomes Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from any cause (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; I2 = 0%; 9 studies; 5437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of death from any cause of 101 per 1000 at 10 years in the conventional dose RT group, this corresponds to 2 fewer men per 1000 (11 fewer to 9 more) in the dose-escalated RT group dying of any cause. Dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to distant metastasis (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 45%; 7 studies; 3499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming a risk of distant metastasis of 29 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group at 10 years, this corresponds to 5 fewer men per 1000 (12 fewer to 6 more) in the dose-escalated RT group developing distant metastases. Dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.55; I2 = 85%; 7 studies; 4328 participants; low-certainty evidence); 92 more men per 1000 (14 more to 188 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GI toxicity as 342 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. However, dose-escalated RT may result in little to no difference in overall late GU toxicity (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; I2 = 51%; 7 studies; 4298 participants; low-certainty evidence); 34 more men per 1000 (9 fewer to 82 more) in the dose-escalated RT group assuming overall late GU toxicity as 283 per 1000 in the conventional dose RT group. Based on long-term follow-up (up to 36 months), dose-escalated RT may result or probably results in little to no difference in the quality of life using 36-Item Short Form Survey; physical health (MD -3.9, 95% CI -12.78 to 4.98; 1 study; 300 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mental health (MD -3.6, 95% CI -83.85 to 76.65; 1 study; 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional dose RT, dose-escalated RT probably results in little to no difference in time to death from prostate cancer, time to death from any cause, time to distant metastasis, and RT toxicities (except overall late GI toxicity). While dose-escalated RT may increase overall late GI toxicity, it may result, or probably results, in little to no difference in physical and mental quality of life, respectively.

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.

SBRT focal dose intensification using an MR-Linac adaptive planning for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: An analysis of the dosimetric impact of intra-fractional organ changes

INTRODUCTION

Using an magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-Linac) may improve the precision of visible tumor boosting with ultra-hypofractionation by accounting for daily positional changes in the target and organs at risk (OAR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients with prostate cancer and an MR-detected dominant lesion were treated on the MR-Linac with stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) to 40 Gy in 5 fractions, boosting the gross tumor volume (GTV) to 45 Gy with daily adaptive planning. Imaging was acquired again after initial planning (verification scan), and immediately after treatment (post-treatment scan). Prior to beam-on, additional adjustments were made on the verification scan. Contours were retrospectively adjusted on verification and post-treatment scans, and the daily plan recalculated on these scans to estimate the true dose delivered.

RESULTS

The median prostate D95% for plan 1, 2 and 3 was 40.3 Gy, 40.5 Gy and 40.3 Gy and DIL D95% was 45.7 Gy, 45.2 Gy and 44.6 Gy, respectively. Bladder filling was associated with reduced GTV coverage (p = 0.03, plan 1 vs 2) and prostate coverage (p = 0.03, plan 2 vs 3). The D0.035 cc constraint was exceeded on verification and post-treatment plans in 24 % and 33 % of fractions for the urethra, 31 % and 45 % for the bladder, and 35 % and 25 % for the rectum, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MR-Linac guided, daily adaptive SBRT with focal boosting of the GTV yields acceptable planned and delivered dosimetry. Adaptive planning with a MR-Linac may reliably deliver the prescribed dose to the intended tumor target.

Acute toxicity and health-related quality of life outcomes of localized prostate cancer patients treated with magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy: A prospective phase II trial

PURPOSE

To report acute toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of a phase II clinical trial of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) were eligible. Treatment consisted of a single 15 Gy MRI-guided HDR-BT followed by external beam radiotherapy (37.5-46 Gy depending on their risk category). Dosimetry, toxicity and HRQoL outcomes were collected prospectively at baseline, 1 and 3 months using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0 and the expanded PCa index composite, respectively. General linear mixed modeling was conducted to assess the changes in expanded PCa index composite domain scores over time. A minimally important difference was defined as a deterioration of HRQoL scores at 3 months compared to baseline ≥ 0.5 standard deviation. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were included. Acute grade (G)2 urinary toxicity was observed in 18 (30%) patients while 1 (2%) patient had G3 toxicity, and none had G4 toxicity. Two patients had an acute urinary retention. G2 gastrointestinal toxicity was reported by 5 (8%) patients with no G3-4. Compared to baseline, urinary HRQoL scores significantly declined at 1 month (p < 0.001) but recovered at 3 months (p > 0.05). Bowel (p < 0.001) and sexual (p < 0.001) domain scores showed a significant decline over the 3-month follow-up period. At 3 months, 44%, 49% and 57% of patients reported a minimally important difference respectively in the urinary bowel and sexual domains.

CONCLUSION

MRI-guided HDR-BT boost is a safe and well tolerated treatment of intermediate- and high-risk PCa in the acute setting. A longer follow-up and a comparison to ultrasound-based HDR-BT are needed to assess the potential benefit of MRI-guided prostate HDR-BT.

Real-world utilisation of brachytherapy boost and patient-reported functional outcomes in men who had external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer in Australia

Background and purpose

We aimed to evaluate utilisation of brachytherapy (BT) boost in men who had external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer, and to compare patient-reported functional outcomes (PRO) following each approach in a population-based setting in Australia.

Materials and methods

This is a population-based cohort of men with localised prostate cancer enrolled in the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, who had EBRT between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were proportion who had BT-boost, and PRO (assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaires) 12 months post-treatment. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to evaluate factors associated with BT-boost, and linear regressions were used to estimate differences in EPIC-26 domain scores between EBRT alone and EBRT + BT.

Results

Of the 1,626 men in the study, 88 (5.4 %) had BT-boost. Factors independently associated with BT-boost were younger age, higher socioeconomic status, and treatment in public institutions. 1,555 men completed EPIC-26 questionnaires. No statistically or clinically significant differences in EPIC-26 urinary, sexual and bowel functional domain scores were observed between men who had EBRT + BT vs EBRT alone, with adjusted mean differences in urinary incontinence, urinary irritative/ obstruction, sexual, and bowel domain of 1.28 (95 %CI = -3.23 to 5.79), -2.87 (95 %CI = -6.46 to 0.73), 0.49 (95 %CI = -4.78 to 5.76), and 2.89 (95 %CI = -0.83 to 6.61) respectively.

Conclusion

1-in-20 men who had EBRT for prostate cancer had BT-boost. This is the first time that PRO following EBRT+/-BT is reported at a population-based level in Australia, with no evidence to suggest worse PRO with addition of BT-boost 12 months post-treatment.

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.

Dose-escalation in prostate cancer: Results of randomized trials

In 1998, an editorial from the International Journal of Radiation Oncology - Biology - Physics (IJROBP) on the occasion of the publication of Phase I by Zelefsky et al. on 3D radiotherapy dose escalation asked the question: "will more prove better?". More than 20 years later, several prospective studies have supported the authors' conclusions, making dose escalation a new standard in prostate cancer. The data from prospective randomized studies were ultimately disappointing in that they failed to show an overall survival benefit from dose escalation. However, there is a clear and consistent benefit in biochemical recurrence-free survival, which must be weighed on an individual patient basis against the potential additional toxicity of dose escalation. Techniques and concepts have become more and more precise, such as intensity modulated irradiation, simultaneous integrated boost, hypofractionated dose-escalation, pelvic irradiation with involved node boost or focal dose-escalation on gross recurrence after prostatectomy. The objective here was to summarize the prospective data on dose escalation in prostate cancer and in particular on recent advances in the field. In 2022, can we finally say that more has proven better?

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Hitting Harder, Faster, and Smarter in High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a technologically sophisticated form of radiotherapy that holds significant potential to effectively treat high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC). Prostate SBRT has been the subject of intense investigation in the context of low- and intermediate-risk disease, but less so for HRPC. However, emerging data are demonstrating its potential to safely and efficiently delivery curative doses of radiotherapy, both to the prostate and elective lymph nodes. SBRT theoretically hits harder through radiobiological dose escalation facilitated by ultra-hypofractionation (UHRT), faster with only five treatment fractions, and smarter by using targeted, focal dose escalation to maximally ablate the dominant intraprostatic lesion (while maximally protecting normal tissues). To achieve this, advanced imaging modalities like magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific membrane antigen positron emmission tomography (PSMA-PET) are leveraged in combination with cutting-edge radiotherapy planning and delivery technology. In this focused narrative review, we discuss key evidence and upcoming clinical trials evaluating SBRT for HRPC with a focus on dose escalation, elective nodal irradiation, and focal boost.

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.

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.

Trends in Androgen Deprivation Use in Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Who Underwent Radiotherapy

Purpose

Until 2018, National Cancer Comprehensive Network guidelines recommended androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for all men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who had undergone radiation therapy. Intermediate risk was stratified as favorable and unfavorable in 2018, and ADT recommendation was limited to men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Data suggesting this stratification and treatment deintensification were first published in December 2013. This study characterizes US national trends for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors associated with ADT use in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who have undergone definitive radiation therapy.

Methods and Materials

This retrospective cohort study examined 108,185 men in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2016. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and associations with the use of ADT were characterized.

Results

In total, 108,185 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent radiation therapy from 2004 to 2016. Of these men, 41.09% received ADT. Among the 60,705 men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 32.06% received ADT. Among the 47,480 men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 52.64% received ADT. On multivariate analysis, use of ADT was associated with age and year of diagnosis; being a race other than White; having government-based insurance; having a higher prostate-specific antigen level, tumor stage, and Gleason score; receiving treatment at a nonacademic center; and receiving external beam radiation therapy alone.

Conclusions

The findings highlight that ADT use is variable in men undergoing definitive radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with the data suggesting that several clinical and socioeconomic disparities influence its use. The findings suggest that a significant proportion of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer receive ADT and remain candidates for treatment de-escalation, whereas a significant proportion of men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer may be undertreated when ADT is omitted.

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].

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.

The Journey of Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Prostate Cancer; Conventional Dose Escalation to Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Boost Treatments

High risk prostate cancer (HR-PrCa) is a subset of localized PrCa with significant potential for morbidity and mortality associated with disease recurrence and metastasis. Radiotherapy combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy has been the standard of care for many years in HR-PrCa. In recent years, dose escalation, hypo-fractionation and high precision delivery with immobilization and image-guidance have substantially changed the face of modern PrCa radiotherapy, improving treatment convenience and outcomes. Ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy delivered with high precision in the form of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combines delivery of high biologically equivalent dose radiotherapy with the convenience of a shorter treatment schedule, as well as the promise of similar efficacy and reduced toxicity compared to conventional radiotherapy. However, rigorous investigation of SBRT in HR-PrCa remains limited. Here, we review the changes in HR-PrCa radiotherapy through dose escalation, hypo- and ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy boost treatments, and the radiobiological basis of these treatments. We focus on completed and on-going trials in this disease utilizing SBRT as a sole radiation modality or as boost therapy following pelvic radiation.

Early outcomes of high-dose-rate brachytherapy combined with ultra-hypofractionated radiation in higher-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

This study evaluated outcomes associated with a high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with higher-risk localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 101 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk, unfavorable intermediate-risk, or favorable intermediate-risk with probable extra-prostatic extension treated with HDR brachytherapy (15 Gy x 1 fraction) followed by SBRT (5 Gy x 5 daily fractions to the prostate and/or seminal vesicles and/or pelvic lymph nodes). Androgen deprivation therapy was used in 55.4% of all patients (90% of high-risk, 33% of intermediate-risk). Toxicities according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 and International Prostate Symptom Scores were prospectively documented at each followup visit. Biochemical relapse was defined as PSA nadir +2ng/mL.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time after SBRT was 24.1 months. No grade ≥3 toxicities were observed. The incidence of acute and late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities was both 0.99%. Acute and late grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were observed in 5.9% and 9.9%, respectively. Median time to a grade 2 GU toxicity was 6 months with a 14% 2-year actuarial rate of grade 2 GU toxicity. Median International Prostate Symptom Scores at 24 months was not significantly different than baseline (6 vs. 5; p = 0.24). Inclusion of pelvic lymph nodes and absence of a rectal spacer were significantly associated with more frequent grade ≥1 GU toxicity, but not grade ≥2 GU or gastrointestinal toxicity. The 2-year biochemical relapse free survival was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

HDR brachytherapy combined with SBRT was associated with a favorable early toxicity profile and encouraging cancer control outcomes.

A comparative analysis between low-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in Asian men

OBJECTIVE

To report the long-term clinical outcomes of low-risk (LR) and intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer patients treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men with biopsy-proven low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer received EBRT and LDR-BT in an Asian academic center from 2000 to 2019 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) and overall survival (OS) between LDR and EBRT in the low- and intermediate-risk cohorts.

RESULTS

642 patients (521 EBRT and 121 LDR-BT) with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were included for analysis. In the intermediate-risk group, 5- and 10-year bFFS was 96%, 89% and 86%, 61% for LDR-BT and EBRT, respectively. LDR-BT was associated with a statistically significant improvement of bFFS in the intermediate-risk cohort (HR 2.7, p = 0.02). In the low-risk cohort, no difference of bFFS was found between LDR-BT and EBRT (HR 1.9, p = 0.08). Hormone therapy was more common in EBRT than LDR-BT for intermediate-risk group (71% versus 44%, p < 0.05). Prostate cancer-specific mortality was low in both EBRT (1%) and LDR-BT (2%) cohorts. No significant difference in OS was found between LDR-BT and EBRT in low- and intermediate-risk group (HR 2.1, p = 0.2 and HR = 1.7, p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective study, LDR-BT is associated with superior bFFS compared with EBRT in Asian men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0321: A Phase II Trial of Combined High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate

PURPOSE

To report the long-term outcome of patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy from a prospective multi-institutional trial conducted by NRG Oncology/RTOG.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with clinically localized (T1c-T3b) prostate cancer without prior history of transurethral resection of prostate or hip prosthesis were eligible for this study. All patients were treated with a combination of 45 Gy in 25 fractions from external beam radiation therapy and one HDR implant delivering 19 Gy in 2 fractions. Adverse events (AE) were collected using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. Cumulative incidence was used to estimate time to severe late gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical failure, disease-specific mortality, local failure, and distant failure. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-nine patients were enrolled from July 2004 to May 2006. AE data was available for 115 patients. Patients were National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate to very high risk. The median age was 68, T1c-T2c 91%, T3a-T3b 9%, PSA ≤10 70%, PSA >10 to ≤20 30%, GS 6 10%, GS 7 72%, and GS 8 to 10 18%. Forty-three percent of patients received hormonal therapy. At a median follow-up time of 10 years, there were 6 (5%) patients with grade 3 GI and GU treatment-related AEs, and no late grade 4 to 5 GI and GU AEs. At 5 and 10 years, the rate of late grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary AEs was 4% and 5%, respectively. Five- and 10-year overall survival rates were 95% and 76%. Biochemical failure rates per Phoenix definition at 5 and 10 years were 14% and 23%. The 10-year rate of disease-specific mortality was 6%. At 5 and 10 years, the rates of distant failure were 4% and 8%, respectively. The rates of local failure at 5 and 10 years were 2% at both time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined modality treatment using HDR prostate brachytherapy leads to excellent long-term clinical outcomes in this prospective multi-institutional trial.

Quantifying clinical severity of physics errors in high-dose rate prostate brachytherapy using simulations

PURPOSE

To quantitatively evaluate through automated simulations the clinical significance of potential high-dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy (HDRPB) physics errors selected from our internal failure-modes and effect analysis (FMEA).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A list of failure modes was compiled and scored independently by 8 brachytherapy physicists on a one-to-ten scale for severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D), with risk priority number (RPN) = SxOxD. Variability of RPNs across observers (standard deviation/average) was calculated. Six idealized HDRPB plans were generated, and error simulations were performed: single (N = 1722) and systematic (N = 126) catheter shifts (craniocaudal; -1cm:1 cm); single catheter digitization errors (tip and connector needle-tips displaced independently in random directions; 0.1 cm:0.5 cm; N = 44,318); and swaps (two catheters swapped during digitization or connection; N = 528). The deviations due to each error in prostate D90%, urethra D20%, and rectum D1cm³ were analyzed using two thresholds: 5-20% (possible clinical impact) and >20% (potentially reportable events).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine relevant failure modes were described. Overall, RPNs ranged from 6 to 108 (average ± 1 standard deviation, 46 ± 23), with responder variability ranging from 19% to 184% (average 75% ± 30%). Potentially reportable events were observed in the simulations for systematic shifts >0.4 cm for prostate and digitization errors >0.3 cm for the urethra and >0.4 cm for rectum. Possible clinical impact was observed for catheter swaps (all organs), systematic shifts >0.2 cm for prostate and >0.4 cm for rectum, and digitization errors >0.2 cm for prostate and >0.1 cm for urethra and rectum.

CONCLUSIONS

A high variability in RPN scores was observed. Systematic simulations can provide insight in the severity scoring of multiple failure modes, supplementing typical FMEA approaches.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Rationale, current applications, and clinical outcome

Background

High‐dose‐rate brachytherapy (HDR BRT) has been enjoying rapid acceptance as a treatment modality offered to selected prostate cancer patients devoid of risk group, employed either in monotherapy setting or combined with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and is currently one of the most active clinical research areas.

Recent findings

This review encompasses all the current evidence to support the use of HDR BRT in various clinical scenario and shines light to the HDR BRT rationale, as an ultimately conformal dose delivery method enabling safe dose escalation to the prostate.

Conclusion

Valid long‐term data, both in regard to the oncologic outcomes and toxicity profile, support the current clinical indication spectrum of HDR BRT. At the same time, this serves as solid, rigid ground for emerging therapeutic applications, allowing the technique to remain in the spotlight alongside stereotactic radiosurgery.

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.

Outcomes with brachytherapy based dose escalation for gleason 8 versus 9-10 prostate cancer: An NCDB analysis

INTRODUCTION

The addition of brachytherapy (BT) in high risk prostate cancer is supported by Level 1 evidence. Whether all high risk patients benefit from BT to the same extent is unknown. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to investigate overall survival (OS) differences between GS 8 and 9-10 treated with external beam radiation (EBRT) only or BT +/- EBRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included localized prostate adenocarcinoma definitively treated with radiation between 2004-2014. Patients were stratified into various radiation treatment groups: EBRT 7560 - 8640 cGy, EBRT 5940 - 7540 cGy, and BT +/- EBRT. All EBRT only and BT +/- EBRT patients received ADT. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess OS. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences between groups. Median survival was determined based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

30,698 patients were included. On multivariable analysis among GS 8 patients, BT was associated with improved OS compared to 7560 - 8640 cGy (HR-0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.92, P = 0.002). In Gleason 9-10 BT did not result in improved OS compared to 7560 - 8640 cGy (HR- 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 - 1.05, P = 0.212). Results remained significant with propensity score matching and removing patients with medical comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

BT was associated with improved OS when compared to 7560 - 8640 cGy in GS 8, but not in Gleason 9-10 disease. This hypothesis generating study suggests there may be variable benefit with BT in high risk prostate cancer patients on OS. Future prospective studies are needed to investigate whether the benefit of BT is similar across all high risk prostate cancer patients.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer: Emulation of a target clinical trial

PURPOSE

The comparative effectiveness of surgery and radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer remains a seminal, open question in urologic oncology, with no randomized controlled trials to inform management. We therefore emulated a hypothetical target clinical trial of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted observational analyses using the National Cancer Database from 2006-2015 to emulate a target clinical trial in men 55-69 years with cT1-3cN0cM0, PSA<20 ng/mL, Gleason 8 to 10 prostate adenocarcinoma treated with RP or 75 to 81 Gy EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (EBRT+ADT). The associations of treatment type with overall survival (OS) were estimated using Cox regression with stabilized inverse probability weights (IPW).

RESULTS

A total of 26,806 men formed the study cohort (RP: 23,990; EBRT+ADT: 2,816). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced after IPW-adjustment. Median follow-up was 48.4 (IQR 25.5-76.2) months. After IPW-reweighting, RP was associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.54;95% CI 0.48-0.62; P<0.001), with 5- and 10-year OS of 93% vs 87%, and 76% vs 60%, respectively. RP was associated with improved OS across all categories of Gleason score, PSA, cT stage, age, and Charlson comorbidity index examined. In sensitivity analyses adjusting for biopsy tumor volume and a biopsy-specific Gleason score, RP remained associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.62;95% CI 0.49-0.78; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In observational analyses designed to emulate a target clinical trial of men with high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer, RP was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT+ADT.

Low-/high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: long-term results from a single institution team experience

Purpose

To compare brachytherapy (BT) boost of low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) techniques in patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Material and methods

Between January 2005 and February 2018, 142 patients (50 LDR and 92 HDR) with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with a BT boost, and retrospectively analyzed. Prescribed dose was 45 Gy with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus 100-108 Gy with LDR-BT, and 60 Gy with EBRT plus one fraction of 10 Gy with HDR-BT. 99% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 6 months. Primary endpoint was to compare LDR and HDR boosts in terms of biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Secondary endpoint, after re-classifying patients into "favorable" and "unfavorable" sub-groups, was to analyze differences with a similar treatment intensity.

Results

Median overall follow-up for the total cohort was 66.5 months (range, 16-185 months). There were no significant differences in bPFS, overall survival, cause specific survival, local failure, lymph node failure, or distant failure when LDR or HDR was employed. bPFS at 90 months was 100% for favorable, and 89% and 85% for unfavorable patients at 60 months and 90 months, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.017). The crude incidence of genitourinary acute and chronic toxicity grade 3 was 0.7% and 4%, respectively. Twelve patients (8%) had chronic rectal hemorrhage grade 2, in whom argon was applied (4 LDR and 8 HDR).

Conclusions

Combined treatment is an excellent therapeutic option in patients with intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma, with similar results in both LDR and HDR approaches and very low toxicities. Importantly, the current literature has indicated that unfavorable-risk patients belong to a different category, and should be treated as patients with high-risk factors. Therefore, the stratification and identification of both risk groups is extremely relevant.

Simulation of an HDR "Boost" with Stereotactic Proton versus Photon Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Dosimetric Feasibility Study

Purpose/Objectives

To compare the dose escalation potential of stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) versus stereotactic body photon therapy (SBXT) using high-dose rate prostate brachytherapy (HDR-B) dose-prescription metrics.

Patients and Methods

Twenty-five patients previously treated with radiation for prostate cancer were identified and stratified by prostate size (≤ 50cc; n = 13, > 50cc; n = 12). Initial CT simulation scans were re-planned using SBXT and SBPT modalities using a prescription dose of 19Gy in 2 fractions. Target coverage goals were designed to mimic the dose distributions of HDR-B and maximized to the upper limit constraint for the rectum and urethra. Dosimetric parameters between SBPT and SBXT were compared using the signed-rank test and again after stratification for prostate size (≤ 50cm³ and >50cm³) using the Wilcoxon rank test.

Results

Prostate volume receiving 100% of the dose (V100) was significantly greater for SBXT (99%) versus SBPT (96%) (P ≤ 0.01), whereas the median V125 (82% vs. 73%, P < 0.01) and V200 (12% vs. 2%, P < 0.01) was significantly greater for SBPT compared to SBXT. Median V150 was 49% for both cohorts (P = 0.92). V125 and V200 were significantly correlated with prostate size. For prostates > 50cm³, V200 was significantly greater with SBPT compared to SBXT (14.5% vs. 1%, P = 0.005), but not for prostates 50cm³ (9% vs 4%, P = 0.11). Median dose to 2cm³ of the bladder neck was significantly lower with SBPT versus SBXT (9.6 Gy vs. 14 Gy, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

SBPT and SBXT can be used to simulate an HDR-B boost for locally advanced prostate cancer. SBPT demonstrated greater dose escalation potential than SBXT. These results are relevant for future trial design, particularly in patients with high risk prostate cancer who are not amenable to brachytherapy.

Five-year quality of life in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy alone versus external beam radiotherapy with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost: a prospective multicenter study

Purpose

Brachytherapy (BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) are effective treatments for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQL) remains unclear. In this study, we compared EBRT alone with EBRT plus a boost with high-dose rate (HDR)-BT to determine the impact on HRQL in patients with high-risk PCa.

Material and methods

Prospective, multicenter study comparing patients with high-risk PCa treated with EBRT alone or EBRT + HDR-BT from 2004 to 2006. HRQL was assessed at baseline (pre-treatment) and periodically over the 5-year follow-up, using the SF-36 (v.2), EPIC, and FACT-G and FACT-P questionnaires.

Results

A total of 129 patients were included in the study, of these, 41 received EBRT alone and 88 EBRT + HDR-BT. All patients received hormonotherapy. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar, except for a slightly higher mean number of comorbidities in the EBRT group. During follow-up, the only significant between-group difference was a greater worsening on EPIC hormonal domain in the EBRT alone group (p = 0.028). There were no significant differences in time and interaction of treatment in SF-36, and FACT-G and FACT-P questionnaires or EPIC urinary incontinence, urinary irritative-obstructive, and bowel and sexual domains over the 5-year follow-up. Oncological outcomes were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

After five years of follow-up, EBRT alone or combined with HDR-BT boost had a similar impact on HRQL in patients with high-risk localized PCa. However, patients in the EBRT alone group experienced greater worsening of hormonal domain according to EPIC questionnaire.

Association between Site-of-Care and the Cost and Modality of Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries from 2015 to 2017

Among 84,447 radiotherapy (RT) courses for Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 65 with prostate cancer treated with external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy, or both, 42,608 (51%) were delivered in hospital-affiliated and 41,695 (49%) in freestanding facilities. Freestanding centers were less likely to use EBRT + brachytherapy than EBRT (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.84-0.84]; p < .001). Treatment was more costly in freestanding centers (mean difference $2,597 [95%CI $2,475-2,719]; p < .001). Adjusting for modality and fractionation, RT in hospital-affiliated centers was more costly (mean difference $773 [95%CI $693-853]; p < .001). Freestanding centers utilized more expensive RT delivery, but factors unrelated to RT modality or fractionation rendered RT more costly at hospital-affiliated centers.

Brachytherapy boost (BT-boost) or stereotactic body radiation therapy boost (SBRT-boost) for high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa)

Systematic review for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa, D'Amico classification risk system) with external body radiation therapy (EBRT)+brachytherapy-boost (BT-boost) or with EBRT+stereotactic body RT-boost (SBRT-boost). In March 2020, 391 English citations on PubMed matched with search terms "high risk prostate cancer boost". Respectively 9 and 48 prospective and retrospective studies were on BT-boost and 7 retrospective studies were on SBRT-boost. Two SBRT-boost trials were prospective. Only one study (ASCENDE-RT) directly compared the gold standard treatment [dose-escalation (DE)-EBRT+androgen deprivation treatment (ADT)] versus EBRT+ADT+BT-boost. Biochemical control rates at 9 years were 83% in the experimental arm versus 63% in the standard arm. Cumulative incidence of late grade 3 urinary toxicity in the experimental arm and in the standard arm was respectively 18% and 5%. Two recent studies with HR-PCa (National Cancer Database) demonstrated better overall survival with BT-boost (low dose rate LDR or high dose rate HDR) compared with DE-EBRT. These recent findings demonstrate the superiority of EBRT+BT-boost+ADT versus DE-EBRT+ADT for HR-PCa. It seems that EBRT+BT-boost+ADT could now be considered as a gold standard treatment for HR-PCa. HDR or LDR are options. SBRT-boost represents an attractive alternative, but the absence of randomised trials does not allow us to conclude for HR-PCa. Prospective randomised international phase III trials or meta-analyses could improve the level of evidence of SBRT-boost for HR-PCa.

Prostate Cancer: Biology, Incidence, Detection Methods, Treatment Methods, and Vaccines

Cancer of the prostate are cancers in which most incidences are slow-growing, and in the U.S., a record of 1.2 million new cases of prostate cancer occurred in 2018. The rates of this type of cancer have been increasing in developing nations. The risk factors for prostate cancer include age, family history, and obesity. It is believed that the rate of prostate cancer is correlated with the Western diet. Various advances in methods of radiotherapy have contributed to lowering morbidity. Therapy for hormone- refractory prostate cancer is making progress, for almost all men with metastases will proceed to hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Smoking cigarettes along with the presence of prostate cancer has been shown to cause a higher risk of mortality in prostate cancer. The serious outcome of incontinence and erectile dysfunction result from the cancer treatment of surgery and radiation, particularly for prostate- specific antigen detected cancers that will not cause morbidity or mortality. Families of patients, as well as patients, are profoundly affected following the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Poor communication between spouses during prostate cancer increases the risk for poor adjustment to prostate cancer. The use of serum prostate-specific antigen to screen for prostate cancer has led to a greater detection, in its early stage, of this cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in American men, accounting for more than 29% of all diagnosed cancers and about 13% of all cancer deaths. A shortened course of hormonal therapy with docetaxel following radical prostatectomy (or radiation therapy) for high-risk prostate cancer has been shown to be both safe and feasible. Patients treated with docetaxel-estramustine had a prostate-specific antigen response decline of at least 50%. Cancer vaccines are an immune-based cancer treatment that may provide the promise of a non-toxic but efficacious therapeutic alternative for cancer patients. Further studies will elucidate improved methods of detection and treatment.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost in Combination With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institution Propensity Score Matched Analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a propensity-score matched analysis comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) boost and high-dose-rate (HDR) boost for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A single-institution retrospective chart review was conducted of men treated with pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and SBRT boost (21 Gy and 19 Gy in 2 fractions) to the prostate for prostate cancer. A cohort treated at the same institution with HDR brachytherapy boost (19 Gy in 2 fractions) was compared. Propensity-score (PS) matching and multivariable Cox regression were used for analysis. Outcomes were biochemical recurrence freedom (BCRF) and metastasis freedom (MF).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one men were treated with SBRT boost and 101 with HDR boost with median follow-up of 73.4 and 186.0 months, respectively. In addition, 68.8% of men had high-risk and 26.0% had unfavorable-intermediate disease, and 94.3% received androgen deprivation therapy. Five- and 10-year unadjusted BCRF was 88.8% and 85.3% for SBRT and 91.8% and 74.6% for HDR boost (log-rank P = .3), and 5- and 10-year unadjusted MF was 91.7% and 84.3% for SBRT and 95.8% and 82.0% for HDR (log-rank P = .8). After adjusting for covariates, there was no statistically significant difference in BCRF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.79; P = .6) or MF (HR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.44-2.57; P = .9) between SBRT and HDR boost. Similarly, after PS matching, there was no statistically significant difference between SBRT and HDR (BCRF: HR 0.66, 0.27-1.62, P = .4; MF: HR 0.84, 0.31-2.26, P = .7). Grade 3+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity in the SBRT cohort were 4.6% and 1.5%, and 3.0% and 0.0% in the HDR cohorts (P = .4, Fisher exact test).

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT boost plus pelvic EBRT for prostate cancer resulted in similar BCRF and MF to HDR boost in this single institution, PS matched retrospective analysis. Toxicity was modest. Prospective evaluation of SBRT boost for the treatment of unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer is warranted.