External beam radiation therapy and a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost without or with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

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.

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.

Acute and late toxicities in localized prostate cancer patients treated with low-dose 125I brachytherapy (110 Gy) in combination with external beam radiation therapy versus brachytherapy alone (160 Gy)

Purpose

The aim of this analysis was to compare acute and late toxicities between low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) (110 Gy) in combination with 45 Gy in 25 fractions external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and LDR-BT (160 Gy) alone for localized prostate cancer.

Material and methods

One hundred five consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer treated from May 2014 to May 2017 were included in this retrospective analysis. Sixty patients received combination therapy and 45 patients received BT monotherapy. The LDR-BT procedure was performed using ¹²⁵I seeds.

Results

The median follow-up time was 28 months in both groups. Three-year effect rates were overall survival: 100% in both groups. The biochemical failure rate was 2.3% in the combination group and 0% in the monotherapy group (p = 0.373). No patients died during the study period. In both groups, almost all the patients experienced acute urethritis. There was a significant difference between the combination therapy group (8.3%) and BT monotherapy group (11.1%) in late genitourinary (GU) toxicities ≥ grade 2 (p = 0.035). Only 2 patients (3.3%) in the combination therapy group developed late ≥ grade 2 rectal hemorrhage. There were no significant differences between two groups in hematuria ≥ grade 2 (p = 0.068) or rectal hemorrhage ≥ grade 2 (p = 0.206).

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first report to compare the GU and gastrointestinal toxicities between the combination therapy and BT monotherapy (160 Gy) for localized prostate cancer. Unexpectedly, there were more late GU toxicities (except for hematuria) in the BT monotherapy group.

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.

Significant association of brachytherapy boost with reduced prostate cancer-specific mortality in contemporary patients with localized, unfavorable-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

A randomized trial recently found that adding brachytherapy (BT) boost to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) improves biochemical recurrence-free survival but not prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). We investigated the relationship between BT boost and PCSM in a modern cohort from a large population-based database.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted an analysis of patients in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results diagnosed with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer in 2004-2011, treated with EBRT only or EBRT + BT. The cumulative incidence of PCSM was evaluated in the presence of other-cause mortality as a competing risk. Propensity score matching and multivariable Fine and Gray proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association of combined modality RT on PCSM.

RESULTS

A total of 52,535 patients were identified, of which 19.6% were treated with EBRT + BT. One-third of cases were high-risk. On multivariable analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) of PCSM for EBRT + BT vs. EBRT alone was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.87, p = 0.002), and the adjusted incidence of PCSM was 1.8% vs. 2.7% at 8 years, respectively. In subgroup analyses, the AHR for PCSM was also significantly reduced with EBRT + BT for high-risk disease (AHR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.94, p = 0.02; adjusted incidence of PCSM at 8 years, 5.4% vs. 7.6%), but not for intermediate-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

BT boost was associated with a moderate reduction to PCSM in men with localized unfavorable-risk prostate cancer. Those most likely to benefit are younger patients with high-risk disease.

Potential applications of image-guided radiotherapy for radiation dose escalation in patients with early stage high-risk prostate cancer

Patients with early stage high-risk prostate cancer (prostate specific antigen > 20, Gleason score > 7) are at high risk of recurrence following prostate cancer irradiation. Radiation dose escalation to the prostate may improve biochemical-free survival for these patients. However, high rectal and bladder dose with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy may lead to excessive gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), by virtue of combining the steep dose gradient of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily pretreatment imaging, may allow for radiation dose escalation and decreased treatment morbidity. Reduced treatment time is feasible with hypo-fractionated IGRT and it may improve patient quality of life.

High-Dose Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Patients With Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Results in 26 Patients

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can emulate high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BRT) dose fractionation. We report our preliminary results using SBRT in monotherapy or pre-external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost in patients with localized prostate cancer (LpC). The primary end point was the evaluation of both acute and late toxicities; secondary end point was the observation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with LpC having prostate volume ≤90 cm(3) were enrolled in the present study. Patients were treated with SBRT alone or in combined modality (SBRT + EBRT). SBRT was performed using a CyberKnife System (Accuray Incorporated, Sunnyvale, California) and fiducial tracking system.

RESULTS

From February 2008 to July 2013, 21 patients for monotherapy (38 Gy/4 fractions) and 5 for combined modality (9.5 Gy/2 fractions plus 46 Gy/23 fractions EBRT) were enrolled. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was administered in 16 of the 26 patients. The median pretreatment PSA was 9.4 (range, 4.5-14.3) ng/mL. All patients completed the planned therapy. Acute Grade 1 toxicity was observed in 18 patients, genitourinary (GU) in 12 / 26 patients, and gastrointestinal (GI) in 6 / 26 patients. Acute Grade 2 GU toxicity was reported in 1 / 26 patients, and Grade 2 GI toxicity was observed in 2 / 26 patients. The median PSA nadir was 0.15 (range, 0.02 = 1.4) ng/mL. Late toxicities were observed in 5 / 26 patients: Grade 1 GU (3 of 26), Grade 2 GU (1 of 26), and Grade 1 GI (1 of 26). Median follow-up was 21.5 (range, 8-65) months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary results of SBRT "simulating" HDR for LpC confirm a minimal toxicity and an optimal PSA response. The PSA nadirs appear comparable with HDR-BRT.