Comparative effectiveness research for prostate cancer radiation therapy: current status and future directions

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

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

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

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

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

Is robotic arm stereotactic body radiation therapy “virtual high dose ratebrachytherapy” for prostate cancer? An analysis of comparative effectiveness using published data [corrected]

High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) monotherapy and robotic arm (i.e., CyberKnife) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are emerging technologies that have become popular treatment options for prostate cancer. Proponents of both HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT claim that these modalities are as efficacious as intensity-modulated radiation therapy in treating prostate cancer. Moreover, proponents of robotic arm SBRT believe it is more effective than HDR-BT monotherapy because SBRT is non-invasive, touting it as 'virtual HDR-BT.' We perform a comparative effective analysis of the two technologies. The tumor control rates and toxicities of HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT are promising. However, at present, it would be inappropriate to state that HDR-BT monotherapy and robotic arm SBRT are as efficacious or effective as other treatment modalities for prostate cancer, which have stronger foundations of evidence. Studies reporting on these technologies have relatively short follow-up time, few patients and are largely retrospective.

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

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

Assessment of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging (sixth and seventh editions) for clinically localized prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy and comparison with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk-stratification method

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the prognostic value of the sixth and seventh editions of the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual and the risk-stratification model of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

METHODS

Two-thousand four hundred twenty-nine men who received definitive radiotherapy with or without androgen-deprivation therapy (median follow-up, 74 months) were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was a migration of stage II patients to stage I with AJCC seventh edition (stage I increased from 1% to 38%, and stage II decreased from 91% to 55%). One pair-wise comparison (4%) of Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival between stages was statistically significant for the AJCC sixth edition. Conversely, 16 of 24 comparisons (67%) were significant for the AJCC seventh edition. With the NCCN risk-stratification model, 9 of 12 comparisons (75%) were significant. Concordance probability estimate (CPE) and standard error (SE) analysis indicated uniform and significant improvement in the predictive power of the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition for all outcomes. CPE ± SE values for the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition were 0.51 ± 0.009 versus 0.59 ± 0.02, respectively, for biochemical failure; 0.54 ± 0.02 versus 0.70 ± 0.05, respectively, for distant metastasis; 0.57 ± 0.009 versus 0.76 ± 0.007, respectively, for prostate cancer-specific survival; and 0.52 ± 0.006 versus 0.57 ± 0.01, respectively, for overall survival. CPE ± SE values for the NCCN model were 0.59 ± 0.02 for biochemical failure, 0.72 ± 0.05 for distant metastasis, 0.80 ± 0.01 for prostate cancer-specific survival, and 0.57 ± 0.01 for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that the seventh edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual is a major improvement over the sixth edition, because it distributes patients better among the stages and is more prognostic. However, the NCCN model was superior to the AJCC seventh edition and remains the preferred method for risk-based clinical management of prostate cancer with radiotherapy.