The impact of activating source dwell positions outside the CTV on the dose to treated normal tissue volumes in TRUS guided 3D conformal interstitial HDR brachytherapy of prostate cancer

Moderately hypofractionated prostate-only versus whole-pelvis radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: A retrospective real-world single-center cohort study

Background

The benefit of prophylactic whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) in prostate cancer has been debated for decades, with evidence based mainly on conventional fractionation targeting pelvic nodes.

Aim

This retrospective cohort study aimed to explore the impact of adding moderately hypofractionated pelvic radiotherapy to prostate-only irradiation (PORT) on prognosis, toxicity, and quality of life in real-world settings.

Materials and methods

Patients with high-risk and conventionally staged prostate cancer (cT1-3N0M0) treated with moderately hypofractionated WPRT or PORT, using external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy, at Örebro University Hospital between 2008 and 2021 were identified. Biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards. Toxicity and quality of life measures were also analysed.

Results

Among 516 patients (227 PORT, 289 WPRT), 5-year BFFS rates were 77 % (PORT) and 74 % (WPRT), adjusted HR=1.50 (95 % CI=0.88-2.55). No significant differences were found in MFS, PCSS, or OS in main analyses. WPRT was associated with a higher risk of acute grade ≥ 2 and 3 genitourinary toxicities whereas no differences in late toxicities or quality of life between PORT and WPRT were observed.

Conclusion

We found no significant differences in oncological outcomes or quality of life when comparing moderately hypofractionated PORT to WPRT. Some differences in toxicity patterns were observed. Despite caveats related to study design, our findings support the need for further research on WPRT's impact on treatment-related and patient-reported outcomes.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: long-term experience of Swedish single-center

Purpose

Until now, most long-term results for brachytherapy only has been published for low-dose-rate (LDR) seeds. Due to radiobiology reasons, high-dose-rate (HDR) mono-brachytherapy is of growing interest. The aim of the study was to report long-term biochemical control rate and toxicities with HDR monotherapy.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective single-institution experience, including 229 men, clinically staged T1c-T2b, Gleason 3 + 3 (prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 15), or Gleason 3 + 4 (PSA ≤ 10), consecutively treated between 2004 and 2012 with HDR brachytherapy alone, using three different fractionation schedules of 92-95 Gy (EQD(2), α/β = 3). Group 4F (n = 19) had a single implant of 9.5 Gy in four fractions over 2 days. Group 3F (n = 107) had three separate implants of 11 Gy over 4 weeks. Group 2F (n = 103) had two implants of 14 Gy over 2 weeks. No adjuvant hormonal therapy was allowed.

Results

For 4F, 3F, and 2F study groups, median follow-up was 10.2, 7.1, and 6.1 years, respectively, and biochemical failure rate was 10.5%, 4.7%, and 14.6%, respectively. Early and late side effects were followed with common terminology criteria version 2.0 and patient-reported questionnaires. There were a temporary acute urethral toxicity increase, 1-2 grades over baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which usually recovered. About 1/3 of the patients had a remaining one grade over baseline LUTS. Severe grade 3-4 toxicity were only found in 3.5% of patients. No rectal toxicity was observed. Erectile dysfunction (ED) was depending on age and erectile function before treatment. In patients without ED before the treatment, we found a complete ED in 21% of men at the last follow-up.

Conclusions

In the present study, HDR mono-brachytherapy was found to be an effective treatment, with mild long-term side effects difficult to differentiate from aging effects. There were no significant differences in PSA regression, PSA failure rate, and toxicity between the different fraction schedules.

3D image-based adapted high-dose-rate brachytherapy in cervical cancer with and without interstitial needles: measurement of applicator shift between imaging and dose delivery

Purpose

Using 3D image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer treatment, it often means that patients are transported and moved during the treatment procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine the intra-fractional longitudinal applicator shift in relation to the high risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) by comparing geometries at imaging and dose delivery for patients with and without needles.

Material and methods

Measurements were performed in 33 patients (71 fractions), where 25 fractions were without and 46 were with interstitial needles. Gold markers were placed in the lower part of the cervix as a surrogate for HR-CTV, enabling distance measurements between HR-CTV and the ring applicator. Shifts of the applicator relative to the markers were determined using planning computed tomography (CT) images used for planning, and the radiographs obtained at dose delivery. Differences in the physical D₉₀ for HR-CTV due to applicator shifts were simulated individually in the treatment planning system to provide the relative dose variation.

Results

The maximum distances of the applicator shifts, in relation to the markers, were 3.6 mm (caudal), and –2.5 mm (cranial). There was a significant displacement of –0.7 mm (SD = 0.9 mm) without needles, while with needles there was no significant shift. The relative dose variation showed a significant increase in D₉₀ HR-CTV of 1.6% (SD = 2.6%) when not using needles, and no significant dose variation was found when using needles.

Conclusions

The results from this study showed that there was a small longitudinal displacement of the ring applicator and a significant difference in displacement between using interstitial needles or not.