Long-term outcomes of high-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy without hormone therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Until March 2018, patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer had been administered high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without additional hormone therapy (HT) at our institution. In this study, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of this treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer who received HDR-BT and EBRT between April 1997 and March 2021 and who were followed up for at least 6 months were included in the study. High-risk groups were classified into five levels according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The EBRT and HDR-BT doses were 39-45 Gy/13-25 fractions. and 16.5-22 Gy/2-4 fractions, respectively. None of the patients received HT during initial treatment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate biochemical freedom from failure (bFFF), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates. Biochemical failure was also determined.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study, with a median follow-up of 91.9 months. The median age and initial prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level were 71 years and 10.95 ng/mL, respectively. The median biologically effective dose for HDR-BT plus EBRT was 270.3 Gy. The 5- and 7-year bFFF, CSS, and OS rates were 85.2 and 74.2%, 100 and 100%, and 95.7 and 91.9%, respectively. Only the iPSA ≤ 20 group was associated with the higher bFFF rate. The 7-year bFFF rates in the groups with iPSA ≤ 20 and iPSA > 20 were 86.6 and 48.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HDR-BT plus EBRT without HT might be an alternative treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer and iPSA levels ≤ 20. Further studies are required to validate the efficacy of this treatment strategy.

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.

Prior MRI-imaging impact of patients submitted to brachytherapy for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Brachytherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer is a well-established option. Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) for staging and diagnosis of prostate cancer has come to change the current paradigm. In this study we aim to assess the impact of performing mpMRI to evaluate the presence of extracapsular lesions before brachytherapy in patients with prostate cancer concerning biochemical recurrence and time to nadir.

METHODS

Review data from 73 patients submitted to brachytherapy. The following factors were evaluated: age, initial PSA, MRI local staging results, ISUP, nadir, time to nadir, PSA at one-year, biochemical recurrence, and time to recurrence.

RESULTS

Median age was 68 years (51-72) and median follow-up 53 months (30-72). Concerning imaging modality 30,1% (n = 22) patients performed mpMRI. In the mpMRI group, 90.9% (n = 20) had at least one suspect lesion on mpMRI. Time to nadir was 27 months (3-64) in patients where mpMRI was not performed and 23.5 months (2-48) in patients submitted to mpMRI (P = .244). The median value of nadir was 0.42 ng/mL (<0.001-2) in patients submitted to mpMRI and vs 0.28 ng/mL (<0.001-4) in patients without MRI (P = .062) Recurrence utilizing Phoenix criteria was 9% (n = 2) in patients with MRI and 9.2% (n = 5) without mpMRI (P = .456), median follow-up of 43 months (12-72) for the MRI group with 58 months (30-78) for the non-mpMRI group. Both groups were statistically similar.

CONCLUSION

Our results allow us to conclude that in our series MRI did not influence biochemical recurrence, time to nadir, or nadir value.

Tri-modality therapy with i-125 brachytherapy, external beam radiation therapy, and short-term hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate

Introduction

We present tri-modality therapy with i-125 brachytherapy for high-risk prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.

Case presentation

A 75-year-old man had visited our hospital with complaints of dysuria. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was performed for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The resected histopathological prostate tissue showed malignancy (Gleason score: 3 + 3 = 6). Two years thereafter, Gleason score progressed (4 + 5 = 9) concomitantly with increased prostate-specific antigen levels. Therefore, tri-modality therapy, including brachytherapy, was applied. Combined androgen blockade therapy was conducted over a 9-month period. One month after brachytherapy, external beam radiation was performed.

Conclusion

Brachytherapy following transurethral prostate surgery is relatively contraindicated because of increased adverse urethral event frequency and seed placement difficulties. A tri-modality therapy, including brachytherapy, was implemented without any major problems in this patient with high-risk prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, following which he had a favorable prognosis without recurrence for 6 years.

Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.

Brachytherapy Combined With or Without Hormone Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of brachytherapy combined with or without hormone therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials: We systemically searched the Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase databases for studies published between the databases' dates of inception and February 2019. The primary endpoints were the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) rates and 10-year bPFS rates. The results were expressed as the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Based on the heterogeneity evaluated with the I² statistic, a meta-analysis was performed using either a random- or fixed-effects model.

Results: A total of 16 cohort studies including 9,359 patients met all the criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Our data showed that brachytherapy (BT) combined with hormone therapy (HT) increased the patients' 5-year bPFS rates (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.08, P = 0.005) and 10-year bPFS rates (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02–1.23, P = 0.001) compared with BT monotherapy. However, BT combined with HT did not increase the patients' 5-year OS rates (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.99–1.095, P = 0.1) compared with BT monotherapy.

Conclusions: BT combined with HT can increase the bPFS rates of patients with localized prostate cancer, but it does not improve patients' OS rates.

Long-term outcomes analysis of low-dose-rate brachytherapy in clinically T3 high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The available data demonstrating that superiority of LDR brachytherapy (LDR-BT) boost in high-risk prostate cancer patients under represents patients with extracapsular extension (T3a) and/or seminal vesicle invasion (T3b) have been limited. We report long-term clinical outcomes data for patients with cT3a/b disease receiving LDR-BT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ninety-nine men (median age: 69.4 years) with cT3a/bN0M0 high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma received definitive LDR-BT or LDR-BT boost after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at a single institution between 1998 and 2007. About 86% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method with the Phoenix definition used as definition of failure. Cox regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between clinical stage, initial PSA, Gleason Score, and percent core positive rate.

RESULTS

With a median followup of 7 years, 7-year rate of FFBF, PCSS, and OS for the entire cohort was 65.2% (±5.6%), 90.1% (±3.6%), and 77.9% (±4.7%), respectively. LDR-BT boost patients achieved a 7-year FFBF rate of 73.5 (±6.5%). No significant difference in outcomes was present between T3a or T3b disease, Gleason score, iPSA stratification and percent core positive rates.

CONCLUSIONS

LDR-BT, primarily as a boost in conjunction with ADT and EBRT, is not only feasible, but also highly effective in men with cT3a and cT3b high-risk prostate cancer resulting in excellent biochemical control and survival outcomes. LDR-BT boost implantation of patients should be strongly considered for cT3 patients given the merits of trimodality care.

Intraductal/ductal histology and lymphovascular invasion are associated with germline DNA-repair gene mutations in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Germline mutations in genes mediating DNA repair are common in men with recurrent and advanced prostate cancer, and their presence may alter prognosis and management. We aimed to define pathological and clinical characteristics associated with germline DNA-repair gene mutations, to facilitate selection of patients for germline testing.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 150 unselected patients with recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer who were offered germline genetic testing by a single oncologist using a clinical-grade assay (Color Genomics). This platform utilizes next-generation sequencing from saliva to interrogate 30 cancer-susceptibility genes. Presence or absence of a deleterious germline mutation was correlated with histological and clinical characteristics, and with family history of cancer. All patients with DNA-sequence alterations (pathogenic or variants) were offered genetic counseling.

RESULTS

Between July 2016 and July 2017, 150 consecutive patients underwent germline testing; pathogenic mutations were identified in 21 men (14%). Among those with germline mutations, 9 (43%) were in BRCA2, 3 (14%) were in ATM, 3 (14%) were in CHEK2, and 2 (9%) were in BRCA1. While there were no associations between germline mutations and age, tumor stage, Gleason sum or family history; mutation-positive patients had lower median PSA levels at diagnosis (5.5 vs 8.6 ng/mL, P = 0.01) and unique pathologic features. Namely, men with germline mutations were more likely to harbor intraductal/ductal histology (48% vs 12%, P < 0.01) and lymphovascular invasion (52% vs 14%, P < 0.01). Finally, 44% of patients with a positive germline test would not have been offered genetic screening according to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of intraductal/ductal histology and lymphovascular invasion appear to be associated with pathogenic germline DNA-repair gene mutations in men with prostate cancer, and identification of these features may help to select patients for germline testing. NCCN guidelines may be inadequate in predicting which prostate cancer patients should undergo genetic screening.

Prostate Cancer: A Contemporary Approach to Treatment and Outcomes

Given the high incidence of prostate cancer and the need for shared decision-making before screening, it is imperative that primary care providers understand treatment options and treatment adverse effects. In this review article, the treatment options for the localized and metastatic prostate cancer are discussed, including the different modalities and their indications, adverse effects, oncologic outcomes, posttreatment monitoring, and potential treatment options following cancer recurrence.

Lack of Benefit From the Addition of External Beam Radiation Therapy to Brachytherapy for Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated that the addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy did not improve progression-free survival in select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. We evaluated whether the addition of EBRT to brachytherapy improves prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) for intermediate- and high-risk disease using a large national database.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified 5836 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database with a diagnosis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk (Gleason score 7, prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b-T2c) or high-risk (Gleason score 8-10 or prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL and stage ≤cT3a) prostate cancer who had undergone brachytherapy, with or without EBRT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients were diagnosed from 2004 through 2009. Intermediate-risk patients with Gleason score ≤3+4 and 1 intermediate-risk factor were considered favorable and all others unfavorable. We used multivariable Fine-Gray competing risks regression to study PCSM while adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors and ADT use.

RESULTS

Overall, 50.3% of intermediate- and high-risk patients who received brachytherapy and EBRT did not have significantly improved PCSM compared with that of the patients who received brachytherapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-3.11; P=.322; 5-year PCSM 2.4% vs 1.0%). This lack of benefit was seen among favorable intermediate-risk (AHR 2.66, 95% CI 0.93-7.62, P=.069; 5-year PCSM 1.3% vs 0.6%), unfavorable intermediate-risk (AHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.16-2.96, P=.612; 5-year PCSM 1.0% vs 1.2%), and high-risk (AHR 1.82, 95% CI 0.67-4.98, P=.242; 5-year PCSM 5.3% vs 2.1%) subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that certain patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy might not benefit from the addition of EBRT. A randomized controlled trial of brachytherapy plus ADT with or without EBRT for unfavorable intermediate- and favorable high-risk organ-confined prostate cancer should be undertaken.

Approach to the Patient with High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Men classified as having high-risk prostate cancer warrant treatment because durable outcomes can be achieved. Judicious use of imaging and considerations of risk factors are essential when caring for men with high-risk disease. Radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and androgen deprivation therapy all play pivotal roles in the management of men with high-risk disease, and potentially in men with metastatic disease. The optimal combinations of therapeutic regimens are an evolving area of study and future work looking into therapies for men with high-risk disease will remain critical.

Evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer (summary: Japanese Urological Association, 2016 edition)

These guidelines cover a wide range of topics from prostate cancer epidemiology to palliative care. Questions arising in daily clinical practice have been extracted and formulated as clinical questions. In the 4 years since the previous edition, there have been major changes - for example, robot-assisted prostatectomy has rapidly come into widespread use, and new hormones and anticancer drugs have been developed for castration-resistant prostate cancer. In response to these developments, the number of fields included in this guideline was increased from 11 in the 2012 edition to 16, and the number of clinical questions was increased from 63 to 70. The number of papers identified in searches of the existing literature increased from 4662 in the first edition, published in 2006, to 10 490 in the 2012 edition. The number of references has reached 29 448 just during this review period, indicating the exponential increase in research on the topic of prostate cancer. Clinical answers have been prepared based on the latest evidence. Recommendation grades for the clinical answers were determined by radiologists, pathologists, and other specialists in addition to urologists in order to reflect the recent advances and diversity of prostate cancer treatment. Here, we present a short English version of the original guideline, and overview its key clinical issues.

An appraisal of analytical tools used in predicting clinical outcomes following radiation therapy treatment of men with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background

Prostate cancer can be treated with several different modalities, including radiation treatment. Various prognostic tools have been developed to aid decision making by providing estimates of the probability of different outcomes. Such tools have been demonstrated to have better prognostic accuracy than clinical judgment alone.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken to identify papers relating to the prediction of clinical outcomes (biochemical failure, metastasis, survival) in patients with prostate cancer who received radiation treatment, with the particular aim of identifying whether published tools are adequately developed, validated, and provide accurate predictions. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title and abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers. A review protocol was published in advance of commencing literature searches.

Results

The search strategy resulted in 165 potential articles, of which 72 were selected for full text review and 47 ultimately included. These papers described 66 models which were newly developed and 31 which were external validations of already published predictive tools. The included studies represented a total of 60,457 patients, recruited between 1984 and 2009. Sixty five percent of models were not externally validated, 57% did not report accuracy and 31% included variables which are not readily accessible in existing datasets. Most models (72, 74%) related to external beam radiation therapy with the remainder relating to brachytherapy (alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy).

Conclusions

A large number of prognostic models (97) have been described in the recent literature, representing a rapid increase since previous reviews (17 papers, 1966–2007). Most models described were not validated and a third utilised variables which are not readily accessible in existing data collections. Where validation had occurred, it was often limited to data taken from single institutes in the US. While validated and accurate models are available to predict prostate cancer specific mortality following external beam radiation therapy, there is a scarcity of such tools relating to brachytherapy. This review provides an accessible catalogue of predictive tools for current use and which should be prioritised for future validation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0786-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: Use of androgen deprivation therapy with prostate brachytherapy-A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Prostate brachytherapy (PB) has well-documented excellent long-term outcomes in all risk groups. There are significant uncertainties regarding the role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with brachytherapy. The purpose of this report was to review systemically the published literature and summarize present knowledge regarding the impact of ADT on biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase covering the years 1996-2016. Selected were articles with >100 patients, minimum followup 3 years, defined risk stratification, and directly examining the role and impact of ADT on bPFS, CSS, and OS. The studies were grouped to reflect disease risk stratification. We also reviewed the impact of ADT on OS, cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and on-going brachytherapy randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two selected studies (43,303 patients) were included in this review; 7 high-dose rate and 45 low-dose rate; 25 studies were multi-institutional and 27 single institution (retrospective review or prospective data collection) and 2 were RCTs. The studies were heterogeneous in patient population, risk categories, risk factors, followup time, and treatment administered, including ADT administration and duration (median, 3-12 months);71% of the studies reported a lack of benefit, whereas 28% showed improvement in bPFS with addition of ADT to PB. The lack of benefit was seen in low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk (IR) disease and most high-dose rate studies. A bPFS benefit of up to 15% was seen with ADT use in patients with suboptimal dosimetry, those with multiple adverse risk factors (unfavorable IR [uIR]), and most high-risk (HR) studies. Four studies reported very small benefit to CSS (2%). None of the studies showed OS advantage; however, three studies reported an absolute 5-20% OS detriment with ADT. Literature suggests that OS detriment is more likely in older patients or those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Four RCTs with an adequate number of patients and well-defined risk stratification are in progress. One RCT will answer the question regarding the role of ADT with PB in favorable IR patients and the other three RCTs will focus on optimal duration of ADT in the uIR and favorable HR population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with brachytherapy have excellent long-term disease outcomes. Existing evidence shows no benefit of adding ADT to PB in low-risk and favorable IR patients. UIR and HR patients and those with suboptimal dosimetry may have up to 15% improvement in bPFS with addition of 3-12 months of ADT, with uncertain impact on CSS and a potential detriment on OS. To minimize morbidity, one should exercise caution in prescribing ADT together with PB, in particular to older men and those with existing cardiovascular disease. Due to the retrospective nature of this evidence, significant selection, and treatment bias, no definitive conclusions are possible. RCT is urgently needed to define the potential role and optimal duration of ADT in uIR and favorable HR disease.

ACR appropriateness criteria: Permanent source brachytherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To provide updated American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria for transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial permanent source brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The ACR appropriateness criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

RESULTS

Permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) is a treatment option for appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer with low to very high risk disease. PPB monotherapy remains an appropriate and effective curative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer patients demonstrating excellent long-term cancer control and acceptable morbidity. PPB monotherapy can be considered for select intermediate-risk patients with multiparametric MRI useful in evaluation of such patients. High-risk patients treated with PPB should receive supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) along with androgen deprivation. Similarly, patients with involved pelvic lymph nodes may also be considered for such combined treatment but reported long-term outcomes are limited. Computed tomography-based postimplant dosimetry completed within 60 days of PPB is essential for quality assurance. PPB may be considered for treatment of local recurrence after EBRT but is associated with an increased risk of toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Updated appropriateness criteria for patient evaluation, selection, treatment, and postimplant dosimetry are given. These criteria are intended to be advisory only with the final responsibility for patient care residing with the treating clinicians.

Clinical Significance of Neoadjuvant Combined Androgen Blockade for More Than Six Months in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Prostate Brachytherapy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to clarify the clinical significance of neoadjuvant combined androgen blockade (CAB) for ≥ 6 months in patients with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 431 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent prostate brachytherapy (BT) with or without neoadjuvant CAB for ≥ 6 months with mean follow-up time of 64.6 months (range 24-108 months) were evaluated retrospectively. Of those 431, 232 patients received BT in combination with neoadjuvant CAB for ≥ 6 months. Biochemical recurrence-free rates (BRFRs) in 364 patients with at least 3 years of follow-up were evaluated by log-rank test.

RESULTS

BRFR in patients with low-, intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were 98.1, 94.2 and 89.1%, respectively. In patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer only, neoadjuvant CAB was significantly associated with BRFR (p = 0.0468). Especially in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer with radiation dose received by 90% of the prostate (D90) < 180 Gy, neoadjuvant CAB exerted a favorable impact on BRFR (p = 0.0429). On multivariate analyses, neoadjuvant CAB and D90 were independent predictors of BRFR (p = 0.0061 and p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant CAB for ≥ 6 months has a favorable impact on BRFR in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, particularly in patients with relatively low radiation doses of D90.

High-risk prostate cancer-classification and therapy

Approximately 15% of patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with high-risk disease. However, the current definitions of high-risk prostate cancer include a heterogeneous group of patients with a range of prognoses. Some have the potential to progress to a lethal phenotype that can be fatal, while others can be cured with treatment of the primary tumour alone. The optimal management of this patient subgroup is evolving. A refined classification scheme is needed to enable the early and accurate identification of high-risk disease so that more-effective treatment paradigms can be developed. We discuss several principles established from clinical trials, and highlight other questions that remain unanswered. This Review critically evaluates the existing literature focused on defining the high-risk population, the management of patients with high-risk prostate cancer, and future directions to optimize care.

Five-year outcomes after iodine-125 seed brachytherapy for low-risk prostate cancer at three cancer centres in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To report the outcomes of >1000 men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy at three large UK cancer centres.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1038 patients with low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤10 ng/mL, Gleason score 6, ≤T2b disease) were treated with LDR iodine 125 (I-125) brachytherapy between 2002 and 2007. Patients were treated at three UK centres. PSA and clinical follow-up was performed at each centre. Biochemical recurrence-free survival was reported for the cohort.

RESULTS

The median (range) PSA follow-up for the whole group was 5 years (4 months to 9 years). A total of 79 patients had biochemical failure, defined by a rise in PSA level: 16 patients fulfilled the ASTRO definition of biochemical failure, 25 patients fulfilled the Phoenix definition and 38 patients fulfilled both definitions. The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rate was 94.1% by the ASTRO definition and 94.2% by the Phoenix definition. The absence of neoadjuvant hormone therapy was predictive of inferior biochemical control as defined by the Phoenix definition (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Our prospective multicentre series showed excellent bRFS with LDR I-125 brachytherapy for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Further work is necessary to define the role of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy in combination with brachytherapy.

Improving outcomes in high-risk prostate cancer with radiotherapy

There have been significant improvements in the radiotherapeutic management of patients with high risk prostate cancer. Randomized trials have clearly demonstrated improved outcomes with the combination of radiotherapy in conjunction with androgen deprivation. While these trials have utilized low doses of radiotherapy in the range of 70 Gy, recent studies have suggested that significant benefits of combined androgen deprivation therapy with dose escalated radiotherapy are also observed. The use of high radiation dose levels in the setting of high risk prostate cancer is important, and strategies which combine external beam radiotherapy with a brachytherapy boost may provide an opportunity for even greater intensification of the radiation dose to the prostate target. Systemic therapies, second generation anti-androgen therapy and novel targeted agents integrated with radiotherapy will open up new vistas and challenges for further improved outcomes in patients with high-risk disease.

Treatment outcomes and morbidity following definitive brachytherapy with or without external beam radiation for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: 20-year experience at Mount Sinai Medical Center

OBJECTIVES

To present our treatment algorithm and 20-year experience in treating prostate cancer with brachytherapy since 1990, with focus on cancer-control outcomes and treatment-related morbidity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We selected patients treated for localized prostate cancer with brachytherapy, combination therapy with external beam radiotherapy, and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy as prescribed by our Mount Sinai risk stratification and treatment algorithm. Outcomes were analyzed with respect to biochemical failure, distant metastases, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. Morbidity was assessed with respect to urinary, sexual, and rectal outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 2,495 patients met inclusion criteria. The 12-year actuarial freedom from biochemical failure was 83% (low risk: 90%, intermediate risk: 84%, and high risk: 64%); freedom from distant metastasis was 95%; prostate cancer-specific survival was 95%; and overall survival was 70%. On multivariate analysis, significant associations were found between cancer control and risk group, total biologically effective dose, and androgen deprivation therapy. With regard to morbidity, potency was preserved in 61%, and urinary symptoms improved in 35%. The 12-year actuarial freedom from urinary retention events was 90% and from severe rectal bleed was 93%.

CONCLUSIONS

Brachytherapy, as administered via the Mount Sinai algorithm, remains an efficacious and benign treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer of all risk groups.

Targeted expression of Escherichia coli purine nucleoside phosphorylase and Fludara® for prostate cancer therapy

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that Herpes Simplex Virus thymidine kinase (HSV-tk)/ganciclovir (GCV) comprised the most commonly used suicide gene therapy for prostate cancer, with modest results being obtained. However, novel suicide genes, such as Escherichia coli purine nucleoside phosphorylase (PNP), have been utilized to demonstrate more potent tumor killing and an enhanced bystander effect on local, non-expressing cells compared to HSV-tk.

METHODS

PNP/fludarabine (Fludara®; fludarabine phosphate; Berlex Labs, Richmond, CA, USA) was deliveried by prostate-specific, rat probasin-based promoter, ARR2PB. After infection of various cell lines with ADV.ARR(2) PB-PNP and administration of androgen analog, R1881, expression of PNP mRNA was detected; in vivo, the antitumor effect of the ARR(2) PB-PNP/Fludara system was monitored and analyzed, as well as animal survival.

RESULTS

After in vitro infection with ADV.ARR(2) PB-PNP (multiplicity of infection  =  10), LNCaP cells were more sensitive to a lower concentration Fludara (LD(50) , approximately 0.1 µg/ml) in the presence of R1881. Furthermore, robust bystander effects after R1881/Fludara treatment were observed in LNCaP cells after infection with bicistronic vector ADV.ARR2PB/PNP-IRES-EGFP in contrast to a much weaker effect in cells treated with ADV.CMV-HSV-tk/GCV. In vivo, tumor size in the ADV.ARR2PB-PNP/Fludara treatment group was dramatically smaller than in the control groups, and the mice treated with our system had a significantly prolonged survival, with three of eight mice surviving up to the 160-day termination point, as well as no systemic toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The ARR(2) PB-PNP/Fludara system induced massive tumor cell death and a prolonged life span without systemic cytotoxicity; therefore, it might be a more attractive strategy for suicide gene therapy of prostate cancer.

Long-term outcomes of prostate cancer patients with Gleason pattern 5 treated with combined brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Recent reports have suggested relatively poor prognosis for prostate cancer patients with Gleason pattern 5 treated with dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (XRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We present the largest series of men with high-risk, Gleason pattern 5 prostate cancer treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy and XRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between April 1995 and December 2008, 329 consecutive patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk disease were treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Most received XRT and ADT. Median followup was 7.2 years. The cause of death was determined for each deceased patient. Multiple clinical, treatment, and dosimetric parameters were evaluated for impact on the evaluated survival parameters.

RESULTS

At 10 years, biochemical progression-free survival, cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival for the group of high-risk patients as a whole was 91.1%, 95.5%, and 72.5%, respectively. There was no difference in biochemical progression-free survival between men with and without Gleason pattern 5 (89.7% vs. 91.8%; p=0.56). However, men with Gleason pattern 5 had lower prostate cancer CSS (90.3% vs. 98.1%; p=0.011). There was no difference in overall survival comparing men with and without Gleason pattern 5 disease (67.7% vs. 75.4%; p=0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Men with high-risk, Gleason pattern 5 histology treated with brachytherapy and XRT have excellent long-term outcomes, which compare favorably to dose-escalated XRT/ADT series without brachytherapy. Nonetheless, Gleason pattern 5 results in lower CSS than high-risk disease without Gleason pattern 5.

The number of high-risk factors and the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality after brachytherapy: implications for treatment selection

PURPOSE

To determine whether an increasing number of high-risk factors is associated with higher prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among men treated with brachytherapy (BT)-based treatment, and whether supplemental therapy has an impact on this risk.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We analyzed the cases of 2234 men with localized prostate cancer treated between 1991 and 2007 with low-dose rate BT monotherapy (n = 457) or BT with supplemental external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT, n = 229), androgen suppression therapy (AST, n = 424), or both (n = 1124). All men had at least one high-risk factor (prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 8-10, or clinical stage ≥T2c). Competing-risks multivariable regressions were performed to determine whether the presence of at least two high-risk factors was associated with an increased risk of PCSM, with adjustment for age, comorbidity, and the type of supplemental treatment.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 4.3 years. The number of men with at least two high-risk factors was highest in the group treated with BT, EBRT, and AST (21%), followed by BT plus EBRT or AST (13%), and BT alone (8%) (p(trend) < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for PCSM for those with at least two high-risk factors (as compared with one) was 4.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-8.0; p < 0.001). The use of both supplemental EBRT and AST was associated with a decreased risk of PCSM (AHR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; p = 0.03) compared with BT alone. When the high-risk factors were analyzed separately, Gleason score 8-10 was most significantly associated with increased PCSM (AHR 6.2; 95% CI, 3.5-11.2; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Men with high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with BT have decreased PCSM if they receive trimodailty therapy that includes EBRT and AST. This benefit is likely most important in men with multiple determinants of high risk.

High dose brachytherapy as monotherapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We evaluated our retrospective, single institution experience with high dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our cohort included 284 patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer, defined as clinical stage T2b/T2c, Gleason score 7 and/or prostate specific antigen 10 to 20 ng/ml, and 1-year minimum followup. Treatment was 2 high dose rate brachytherapy sessions at 3 fractions of 6.5 Gy each for a mean of 19 days. Prostate specific antigen failure was defined as nadir +2 ng/ml.

RESULTS

Mean followup was 35.1 months (median 31.9). Actuarial 5-year cause specific survival and clinical local control were 100%, distant-metastasis-free survival 98.8% and biochemical disease-free survival 94.4%. Clinical stage predicted biochemical disease-free survival. For stage T2a or less 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was 95.1% vs 100% for stage T2b and 77.4% for T2c (p = 0.012). Percent positive biopsy cores and prostate specific antigen nadir were also predictive. International Prostate Symptom Score results remained stable and potency was maintained in 82.6% of patients at 2 years. Pads were used for the first time after brachytherapy in 22 patients (7.7%), mostly for grade 1 incontinence (occasionally or less per week). Excluding patients with prior transurethral prostatectomy, stroke or tremor 2.5% used pads for the first time after treatment. No patient had urethral stricture. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 1 rectal toxicity developed in 12 patients (4.2%) but not beyond grade 1.

CONCLUSIONS

High dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy is safe and effective for patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer. We recommend caution for percent positive biopsy cores exceeding 75% or clinical stage T2c. Excluding such patients the 5-year biochemical disease-free survival rate was 97.5%.

Management of high-risk localized prostate cancer

Traditionally, patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer have been an extremely challenging group to manage due to a significant likelihood of treatment failure and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). The results of multiple large, prospective, randomized trials have demonstrated that men with high-risk features who are treated in a multimodal fashion at the time of initial diagnosis have improved overall survival. Advances in local treatments such as dose-escalated radiotherapy in conjunction with androgen suppression and postprostatectomy adjuvant radiotherapy have also demonstrated benefits to this subset of patients. However, therapeutic enhancement with the addition of chemotherapy to the primary treatment regimen may help achieve optimal disease control.

Update on prostate brachytherapy: long-term outcomes and treatment-related morbidity

Current research in prostate brachytherapy focuses on five key concepts covered in this review. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate brachytherapy assisted by intraoperative treatment planning is the most advanced form of image-guided radiation delivery. Prostate brachytherapy alone for low-risk prostate cancer achieves lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadirs than intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or protons while maintaining durable biochemical control in about 90% of patients without late failures seen in surgically treated patients. As an organ-conserving treatment option, seed implant results in a lower rate of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence than surgery that has been validated in several recent prospective studies. Combined IMRT and seed implant has emerged as a rational and highly effective approach to radiation-dose escalation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Preliminary results suggest that seed implantation may play a role in improving outcomes for historically poor-prognosis locally advanced and recurrent prostate cancers.

Distant metastases following permanent interstitial brachytherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Recent publications have suggested high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy have a lower risk of distant metastases and improved cause-specific survival (CSS) than patients receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy (XRT). To date, none of these studies has compared distant metastases and CSS in brachytherapy patients. In this study, we evaluate such parameters in a consecutive cohort of brachytherapy patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From April 1995 to June 2007, 1,840 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with brachytherapy. Risk groups were stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (www.nccn.org) guidelines. Subgroups of 658, 893, and 289 patients were assigned to low, intermediate, and high-risk categories. Median follow-up was 7.2 years. Along with brachytherapy implantation, 901 (49.0%) patients received supplemental XRT, and 670 (36.4%) patients received androgen deprivation therapy (median duration, 4 months). The mode of failure (biochemical, local, or distant) was determined for each patient for whom therapy failed. Cause of death was determined for each deceased patient. Multiple parameters were evaluated for impact on outcome.

RESULTS

For the entire cohort, metastases-free survival (MFS) and CSS at 12 years were 98.1% and 98.2%, respectively. When rates were stratified by low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, the 12-year MFS was 99.8%, 98.1%, and 93.8% (p < 0.001), respectively. CSS rates were 99.8%, 98.0%, and 95.3% (p < 0.001) for low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Biochemical progression-free survival was 98.7%, 95.9% and 90.4% for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox-regression analysis, MFS was mostly closely related to Gleason score and year of treatment, whereas CSS was most closely associated with Gleason score.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent CSS and MFS rates are achievable with high-quality brachytherapy for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. These results compare favorably to alternative treatment modalities. In particular, our MFS and CSS rates for high-risk patients appear superior to those of published radical prostatectomy series.

Predictors of the use of supplemental androgen suppression therapy and external beam radiation in men with high-risk prostate cancer undergoing brachytherapy in community practice

PURPOSE

We assessed clinical- and practice-related variables associated with the use of trimodality treatment (androgen suppression therapy, external beam radiation therapy, and brachytherapy) in a community-based cohort of men with high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study cohort was composed of 1342 men with a prostate-specific antigen level >20ng/mL, clinical tumor stage T3 or T4, and/or Gleason score 8-10 disease at two community radiation facilities, Chicago Prostate Cancer Center (Chicago PCC) and 21st Century Oncology (21C). Logistic regression multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with trimodality treatment.

RESULTS

Of 1342 men treated from 1991 to 2005, 650 (48%) received trimodality therapy. Factors associated with trimodality use include younger age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.95, p<0.0001), increasing prostate-specific antigen (AOR 1.54, p<0.0001), Gleason score 7 (AOR 2.88, p<0.0001), Gleason score 8-10 (AOR 4.28, p<0.0001), clinical category T2 (AOR 1.40, p=0.012), clinical category T3 (AOR 4.84, p<0.0001), and year of brachytherapy (AOR 1.13, p<0.0001). Patients treated at 21C were 4.6 times more likely to receive trimodality therapy (p<0.0001) than Chicago PCC. There was a significant interaction between cardiovascular comorbidity status and site (comorbidity×21C, AOR 1.74, p=0.025), indicating that less healthy patients were more likely to receive trimodality treatment at 21C than healthy patients and vice versa at Chicago PCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger men and those with more aggressive pretreatment clinical factors were more likely to receive trimodality treatment in this community cohort of men with high-risk prostate cancer. Selection for trimodality use varied significantly by site indicating a need for treatment standardization in the community.

Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an analysis of localized prostate cancer treatment in the USA between 1998 and 2002.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Results from the National Cancer Institute's Patterns of Care study from 10 regional cancer registries in 1998 and 14 registries in 2002 were compared using univariate and multivariate statistical methods.

RESULTS

Patients with localized prostate cancer in 2002 were younger, had lower prostate-specific antigen values, and higher Gleason scores compared with those diagnosed in 1998. Little change occurred in age-adjusted percentages of men who were treated with a radical prostatectomy (45-46%) or by external beam radiation (EBRT) alone (19-20%). The proportion receiving brachytherapy (BT), alone or with EBRT, increased from 14.9 to 17.7%, while the proportion receiving watchful waiting declined from 12.6 to 9.0%. Younger African-American men with intermediate/high-risk disease were less likely to receive any type of aggressive therapy in comparison with Non-Hispanic White men. Over 70% of men who were ≥ 75 years of age, with low-risk disease, were treated with EBRT or BT.

CONCLUSIONS

Older men with low-risk disease might be overtreated with aggressive therapy, while younger intermediate/high-risk African-American men appear less likely to receive indicated aggressive therapy.

High-risk prostate cancer with Gleason score 8-10 and PSA level ≤15 ng/mL treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy

PURPOSE

With widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, there has been an increase in men diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer defined by a Gleason score (GS) ≥8 coupled with a relatively low PSA level. The optimal management of these patients has not been defined. Cause-specific survival (CSS), biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in brachytherapy patients with a GS ≥8 and a PSA level ≤15 ng/mL with or without androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From April 1995 to October 2005, 174 patients with GS ≥8 and a PSA level ≤15 ng/mL underwent permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Of the patients, 159 (91%) received supplemental external beam radiation, and 113 (64.9%) received ADT. The median follow-up was 6.6 years. The median postimplant Day 0 minimum percentage of the dose covering 90% of the target volume was 121.1% of prescription dose. Biochemical control was defined as a PSA level ≤0.40 ng/mL after nadir. Multiple parameters were evaluated for impact on survival.

RESULTS

Ten-year outcomes for patients without and with ADT were 95.2% and 92.5%, respectively, for CSS (p = 0.562); 86.5% and 92.6%, respectively, for bPFS (p = 0.204); and 75.2% and 66.0%, respectively, for OS (p = 0.179). The median post-treatment PSA level for biochemically controlled patients was <0.02 ng/mL. Multivariate analysis failed to identify any predictors for CSS, whereas bPFS and OS were most closely related to patient age.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with GS ≥8 and PSA level ≤15 ng/mL have excellent bPFS and CSS after brachytherapy with supplemental external beam radiotherapy. The use of ADT did not significantly impact bPFS, CSS, or OS.