Feasibility and early toxicity of focal or partial brachytherapy in prostate cancer patients

Focal brachytherapy as definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we describe the oncologic and toxicity outcomes of definitive focal brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PROSPERO registered study (CRD42023410170) was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies between 2000 and 2022. Two authors independently performed the initial search. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) was defined as the primary endpoint for the meta-analysis. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were conducted to calculate effect size and quantify heterogeneity. We also describe the side effects and local recurrence patterns of focal brachytherapy.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified and included 315 patients treated using focal brachytherapy as a definitive treatment. Mean (SD) age was 67.65 (7.9) years and mean (SD) PSA was 7.15 (2.7) ng/mL. Most patients (n = 236, 75%) underwent LDR Brachytherapy and 25% received HDR brachytherapy. Among the participants, 147 (46.5%) had a Gleason score ≤6, and 169 (53.5%) had a Gleason score ≥7. Only 11 (3.5%) patients received ADT. Overall, bRFS rate at median follow-up 4 years (Range: 1-6.42 years) was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82-95%). Acute Grade ≤ 2 GU and GI toxicities were reported in 22 (7%) and 11 (3.5%) patients, respectively. Late Grade ≤ 2 GU and GI toxicity were reported in 6 (2%) and 14 (4.4%) patients, respectively. One case of prostate hemorrhage due to improper foley removal was noted but otherwise no acute or late Grade 3 or higher GI or GU toxicity related to radiotherapy was reported.

CONCLUSION

Overall, definitive focal brachytherapy has a favorable toxicity profile. Oncologic outcomes are yet to mature. The evidence is limited by the small number of studies with low patients' number, across study heterogeneity, and possibility of publication bias.

Clinical Efficacy and Openness to New Challenges of Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer

Over a century ago, low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy was introduced to treat prostate cancer (PCa). Since then, it has been widely applied worldwide, including in East Asia. LDR brachytherapy has been performed in 88 institutes in Japan. Beneficial clinical outcomes of LDR brachytherapy for intermediate-to-high-risk PCa have been demonstrated in large clinical trials. These clinical outcomes were achieved through advances in methods, such as urological precise needle puncture and seed placement, and the quantitative decision making regarding radiological parameters by radiation oncologists. The combined use of LDR brachytherapy with other therapeutic modalities, such as external beam radiation and androgen deprivation therapy, for the clinical risk classification of PCa has led to better anticancer treatment efficacy. In this study, we summarized basic LDR brachytherapy findings that should remain unchanged and be passed down in urology departments. We also discussed the applications of LDR brachytherapy for PCa in various clinical settings, including focal and salvage therapies. In addition, we highlighted technologies associated with brachytherapy that are under development.

Is hemi-gland focal LDR brachytherapy as effective as whole-gland treatment for unilateral prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

The Hemi-Ablative Prostate Brachytherapy (HAPpy) trial evaluated hemi-gland (HG) low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) as a focal approach to control unilateral localized prostate cancer and reduce treatment-related toxicity at 2-years postimplant. Herewith we present further outcomes with a minimum of 5 years post-implant follow-up.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Outcomes of 30 HG implants and 362 whole-gland (WG) brachytherapy controls were monitored with IPSS, urinary Quality-of-Life (QoLU), GI component of EORTC-PR25 (QoLB), and IIEF-5 instruments, and PSA values. The median (range) follow-up for HG and WG cases was 72 (60-96) months and 84 (24-144) months respectively.

RESULTS

The IPSS was significantly reduced in HG relative to WG patients and trends indicating improved bowel QoL and erectile function were observed. The mean of change in PSA from baseline to last follow-up was -5.6 and -6.5 in HG and WG respectively (p = 0.1). The mean time to nadir was 4.2 and 4.8 years in HG and WG respectively (p = 0.06). Over time PSA in HG patients mirrored the sustained decline observed in WG cases but levels were higher by an average 0.5 ng/ml over WG controls (p < 0.001). Treatment failure occurred in 2 (6.7%) HG patients and in 20 (5.5%) WG cases. Five-year relapse-free survival was 97% in both groups (p = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years postimplant HG LDR-PB was as effective as WG treatment for control of unilateral localized prostate cancer with moderate improvement in treatment-related symptoms. Importantly, PSA is a valuable marker to assess disease control in this form of focal therapy.

An Updated Systematic Review on Focal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: What Has Changed over the Past 5 Years?

CONTEXT

Focal therapy is a promising, minimally invasive strategy to selectively treat localized prostate cancer. A previous systematic review indicated that there is growing evidence for favorable functional outcomes, but that oncological effectiveness was yet to be defined.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of focal therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer in terms of functional and oncological outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies between October 2015 and December 31, 2020. In addition, the research stages were acquired according to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) recommendations. Ongoing studies were identified through clinical trial registries.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-two studies were identified exploring eight different sources of energy to deliver focal therapy in 5827 patients. Twenty-seven studies reported on high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), nine studies on irreversible electroporation, 11 on cryoablation, eight on focal laser ablation and focal brachytherapy, seven on photodynamic therapy (PDT), two on radiofrequency ablation, and one on prostatic artery embolization. The majority of studies were prospective development stage 2a studies (n = 35). PDT and HIFU, both in stage 3, showed promising results. Overall, HIFU studies reported a median of 95% pad-free patients and a median of 85% patients with no clinically significant cancer (CSC) in the treated area. For PDT, no changes in continence were reported and a median of 90% of patients were without CSC. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 5 yr, focal therapy has been studied for eight different energy sources, mostly in single-arm stage 2 studies. Although a first randomized controlled trial in focal therapy has been performed, more high-quality evaluations are needed, preferably via multicenter randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up and predefined assessment of oncological and functional outcomes and health-related quality-of-life measures.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Focal treatment (FT) of prostate cancer has potential, considering that it has less impact on continence and potency than radical treatment. Our systematic review indicates that despite the method being studied extensively over the past half decade, the majority of studies remain in an early research stage. The techniques high-intensity focused ultrasound and photodynamic therapy have shown most progression toward advanced research stages and show favorable results. However, more high-quality evidence is required before FT can become available as a standard treatment.