Single-dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy versus two and three fractions for locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Single-dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy (SD-HDR-BT) was compared to two or three fraction HDR BT in intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer with median follow-up of 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 293 patients received 1 × 19Gy or 1 × 20Gy (Group A = 49), 2 × 13Gy (Group B = 138), or 3 × 10.5 Gy (Group C = 106) HDR BT. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free interval (bRFI). Late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity used RTOG scales and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Freedom from biochemical relapse (bRFI), overall survival (OS) and GU, GI and IPSS morbidity were calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method and log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate hazard ratios (HR) were obtained using Cox's proportional hazard. RESULTS: At 10 years, K-M estimates of bRFI were 64 % (Group A), 72 % (Group B), and 76 % (Group C) (p = 0.2). No statistically significant difference was seen in OS. In multivariate analysis risk-category and ADT administration, but not dose, were significant predictors of relapse (p = 0.0003 and 0.03, respectively). At ten years, GU grade 3 events were 8 % (A), 2 % (B) and 13 % (C); (p = 0.01). IPSS ≥ 20 was 31 % (A), 20 % (B) and 23 % (C); (p = 0.6) and grade 3 GI was 0 % in groups A and B and 2 % in C; (p = 0.3). No GU or GI grade-4 events were observed. Pre-treatment IPSS was a highly significant predictor of failure in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcome data show reduced but not statistically significant difference in PSA control, and no difference in overall survival, between SD-HDR-BT and 2 or 3 fractions of HDR-BT.

Patients' Preferences for Cytoreductive Treatments in Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Prostate Cancer: The IP5-MATTER Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cytoreductive treatments for patients diagnosed with de novo synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) confer incremental survival benefits over systemic therapy, but these may lead to added toxicity and morbidity. Our objective was to determine patients' preferences for, and trade-offs between, additional cytoreductive prostate and metastasis-directed interventions. METHODS: A prospective multicentre discrete choice experiment trial was conducted at 30 hospitals in the UK between December 3, 2020 and January 25, 2023 (NCT04590976). The individuals were eligible for inclusion if they were diagnosed with de novo synchronous mHSPC within 4 mo of commencing androgen deprivation therapy and had performance status 0-2. A discrete choice experiment instrument was developed to elicit patients' preferences for cytoreductive prostate radiotherapy, prostatectomy, prostate ablation, and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy to metastasis. Patients chose their preferred treatment based on seven attributes. An error-component conditional logit model was used to estimate the preferences for and trade-offs between treatment attributes. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 352 patients were enrolled, of whom 303 completed the study. The median age was 70 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 64-76) and prostate-specific antigen was 94 ng/ml (IQR 28-370). Metastatic stages were M1a 10.9% (33/303), M1b 79.9% (242/303), and M1c 7.6% (23/303). Patients preferred treatments with longer survival and progression-free periods. Patients were less likely to favour cytoreductive prostatectomy with systemic therapy (Coef. -0.448; [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.60 to -0.29]; p < 0.001), unless combined with metastasis-directed therapy. Cytoreductive prostate radiotherapy or ablation with systemic therapy, number of hospital visits, use of a "day-case" procedure, or addition of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy did not impact treatment choice. Patients were willing to accept an additional cytoreductive treatment with 10 percentage point increases in the risk of urinary incontinence and fatigue to gain 3.4 mo (95% CI 2.8-4.3) and 2.7 mo (95% CI 2.3-3.1) of overall survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients are accepting of additional cytoreductive treatments for survival benefit in mHSPC, prioritising preservation of urinary function and avoidance of fatigue. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed a large study to ascertain how patients diagnosed with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer at their first diagnosis made decisions regarding additional available treatments for their prostate and cancer deposits (metastases). Treatments would not provide cure but may reduce cancer burden (cytoreduction), prolong life, and extend time without cancer progression. We reported that most patients were willing to accept additional treatments for survival benefits, in particular treatments that preserved urinary function and reduced fatigue.

Rucaparib or Physician's Choice in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 study, rucaparib, an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), showed a high level of activity in patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA alteration. Data are needed to confirm and expand on the findings of the phase 2 study. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alteration and who had disease progression after treatment with a second-generation androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). We randomly assigned the patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or a physician's choice control (docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI [abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide]). The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival according to independent review. RESULTS: Of the 4855 patients who had undergone prescreening or screening, 270 were assigned to receive rucaparib and 135 to receive a control medication (intention-to-treat population); in the two groups, 201 patients and 101 patients, respectively, had a BRCA alteration. At 62 months, the duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the rucaparib group than in the control group, both in the BRCA subgroup (median, 11.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.69) and in the intention-to-treat group (median, 10.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001 for both comparisons). In an exploratory analysis in the ATM subgroup, the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.1 months in the rucaparib group and 6.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.52). The most frequent adverse events with rucaparib were fatigue and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer with rucaparib than with a control medication among patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA alteration. (Funded by Clovis Oncology; TRITON3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02975934.).

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): 2-year toxicity results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external beam radiotherapy and moderate hypofractionation is non-inferior to longer schedules. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows shorter treatment courses without impacting acute toxicity. We report 2-year toxicity findings from PACE-B, a randomised trial of conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus SBRT. METHODS: PACE is an open-label, multicohort, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial conducted at 35 hospitals in the UK, Ireland, and Canada. In PACE-B, men aged 18 years and older with a WHO performance status 0-2 and low-risk or intermediate-risk histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded) were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group to control radiotherapy (CRT; 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or, following protocol amendment on March 24, 2016, 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or SBRT (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Androgen deprivation was not permitted. Co-primary outcomes for this toxicity analysis were Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity at 24 months after radiotherapy. Analysis was by treatment received and included all patients with at least one fraction of study treatment assessed for late toxicity. Recruitment is complete. Follow-up for oncological outcomes continues. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. FINDINGS: We enrolled and randomly assigned 874 men between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018 (441 to CRT and 433 to SBRT). In this analysis, 430 patients were analysed in the CRT group and 414 in the SBRT group; a total of 844 (97%) of 874 randomly assigned patients. At 24 months, RTOG grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity was seen in eight (2%) of 381 participants assigned to CRT and 13 (3%) of 384 participants assigned to SBRT (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -1·3 to 4·0]; p=0·39); RTOG grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was seen in 11 (3%) of 382 participants in the CRT group versus six (2%) of 384 participants in the SBRT group (absolute difference -1·3% [95% CI -3·9 to 1·1]; p=0·32). No serious adverse events (defined as RTOG grade 4 or worse) or treatment-related deaths were reported within the analysis timeframe. INTERPRETATION: In the PACE-B trial, 2-year RTOG toxicity rates were similar for five fraction SBRT and conventional schedules of radiotherapy. Prostate SBRT was found to be safe and associated with low rates of side-effects. Biochemical outcomes are awaited. FUNDING: Accuray.

Single tertiary cancer center experience on the management of pT3b prostate cancer after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Background: Pathological involvement of the seminal vesicle poses a treatment dilemma following robotic prostatectomy. Margin status plays an important role in deciding further management. A wide range of treatment options are available, including active monitoring, adjuvant radiotherapy, salvage radiotherapy, and occasionally androgen deprivation therapy. Patients undergoing postoperative radiotherapy tend to have higher risk of urinary and bowel morbidities. The recent RADICALS-RT concluded that adjuvant radiotherapy did not have any benefit compared with salvage radiotherapy. We aim to audit the incidence, margin status, and management of T3b cancer cases at our center. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all patients diagnosed with pathological T3b (pT3b) prostate cancer following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy from January 2012 to July 2020. Preoperative parameters analyzed included prostate-specific antigen (PSA), T stage, and age. A chi-square test and 2-tailed t test were used to determine the relationship between categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to assess overall survival in patients with pT3b prostate cancer and used to compare unadjusted progression-free survival among those who underwent adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy. Results: A total of 83 (5%) of 1665 patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy were diagnosed with pT3b prostate cancer between January 2012 and July 2020. Among these, 36 patients (44%) did not receive any radiotherapy during follow-up, compared with 26 patients (31%) who received adjuvant radiotherapy and 21 (25%) who received salvage radiotherapy. The median age of our cohort was 64 (SD, 6.4) years. Mean PSA at presentation was 12.7 µg/L. Positive margins were seen in 36 patients (43%); however, there was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups (p = 0.49). The median overall survival was 96%. There was no significant difference between the adjuvant and salvage groups in terms of biochemical progression-free survival (p = 0.66). Five-year biochemical progression-free survival was 94% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 97% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group. Conclusions: Our audit corroborates with the recently concluded RADICALS-RT study, although we had fewer patients with positive margins. Radiotherapy can be avoided in patients with T3b prostate cancer, even if margin is positive, until there is definitive evidence of PSA recurrence. In keeping with the conclusion of RADICALS-RT, salvage radiotherapy may be preferable to adjuvant radiotherapy.

Single dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy with focal dose escalation for prostate cancer: Mature results of a phase 2 clinical trial.

AIM: The dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) is the commonest site of relapse after single dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) for localised prostate cancer. This study investigated toxicity and clinical outcomes of focal dose escalation to the DIL with dose de-escalation to the remaining prostate. MATERIALS/METHODS: Between November 2012 and July 2016, 50 patients with localised prostate adenocarcinoma received single fraction HDR-BT. 21 Gy was prescribed to the DIL, with two de-escalation prescription schedules for the remaining prostate. Primary outcomes included biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED), local recurrence free survival (LRFS), and metastasis free survival (MFS). Secondary outcomes included late genitourinary, gastrointestinal and sexual toxicity. Kaplan-Meier analyses with log rank tests were used to estimate bNED, LRFS and MFS. RESULTS: With a median follow up of 70.6 months, 15 patients developed biochemical failure, including 8 in the group that received minor dose de-escalation to the non-DIL prostate (group 1) and 7 in the group that received moderate de-escalation (group 2). Five-year bNED was 88% in group 1 and 76% in group 2 (p = 0.05). Overall 4-year and 5-year FFLF in group 1 was 100% and 96% and in group 2 92% and 84%. These differences were statistically significant (p = 0.03). No acute ≥G3 genitourinary or ≥G2 gastrointestinal toxicity was reported. The median IIEF decreased in the first 6 months improving to a peak median score of 20 at 54 months. CONCLUSION: Focal boost to the DIL did not improve biochemical or local control after single-fraction HDR monotherapy compared to what would be expected from 19 Gy single fraction treatment to the whole gland.

Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy for low- and intermediate risk prostate cancer: High-dose-rate brachytherapy vs stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the biochemical control rates (BCRs), late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities in patients with low- and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR BT) of 19 Gy/1 fraction, 26 Gy/2 fractions, or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) of 36.25 Gy/5 fractions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between August 2008 and December 2017, patients with low- and intermediate risk PCa who received single dose or 2-fraction HDR BT, or 5-fraction SABR at a single institution were included. BCR for the whole population and the individual treatment groups were calculated using the Phoenix definition. Post treatment GI and GU toxicities were evaluated according to the CTCAE v4.0 guidelines. RESULTS: 185 patients with low- and intermediate risk PCa were included in this study with a median follow up of 60.5 months. BCRs at 3 and 5 years were 95% and 85% for all patients. The 5-year BCRs were 69%, 95% and 92% for the 19 Gy/1 fraction, 26 Gy/2 fractions and 36.25 Gy/5 fractions groups respectively. The cumulative 5-year incidence rates of ≥grade 2 GI events in the 19 Gy/1fr, 26 Gy/2fr and 36.25 Gy/5fr groups were 0%, 2% and 4%, respectively. Incidence rates in those treated in the 5-fraction SABR arm were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those treated in both HDR BT arms where no statistically significant difference between the two HDR BT groups was seen (p = 0.15). The cumulative 5-year incidence rates of ≥grade 2 GU events in the 19 Gy/1fr, 26 Gy/2fr and 36.25 Gy/5fr groups were 30%, 5% and 6%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the 26 Gy/2fr and 36.25 Gy/5fr (p = 0.37) treatment arms but the incidence rate in the 26 Gy/2fr were significantly lower than those seen after 19 Gy/1fr (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: 26 Gy/2 fractions HDR BT provided equivalent BCR with lower toxicity compared to 36.25 Gy/5 fractions SABR. Both 2-fraction HBR BT and 5-fraction SABR achieved better BCRs than single dose 19 Gy HDR BT. The two-fraction HDR BT schedule should be considered as an important comparator in future clinical trials.

Dosimetry of local failure with single dose 19 Gy high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Long-term follow up of single dose high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR BT) for localised prostate cancer has revealed higher than expected rates of biochemical and local failure. This study aimed (i) to investigate the pattern of relapse within the prostate with reference to the initial site of disease in those patients; and (ii) to examine if there were any relationships between the HDR BT dosimetric parameters to these areas of recurrence. MATERIALS/METHODS: A retrospective review of treatment records of patients who received 19 Gy single fraction of HDR BT was carried out. A matched pair analysis used one control for each biochemical recurrence case matched with pre-treatment Clinical target volume (CTV) size, Gleason score, T stage, risk category and presence of an identifiable dominant intraprostatic nodule (DIL) for each biochemical recurrence case identified. For all datasets, the pre HDR BT DILs were delineated on the diagnostic pre-treatment T2-weighted MRI and planning CT images. For patients with local recurrence post HDR BT, the recurrent nodules were contoured on the diagnostic T2-weighted MRI and choline PET which were registered to the original HDR BT planning CT. Dosimetric parameters of CTV, planning target volume (PTV), DIL and organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to investigate if there were any significant differences in dosimetric parameters between cases and controls. Cox regression analysis was performed to explore if there were any clinical and dosimetric parameters predicting for biochemical progression free survival (bPFS), local recurrence free survival (LR-PFS) and DIL recurrence free survival (DIL-PFS). RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2018, 180 patients received 19 Gy HDR-BT monotherapy. With a median follow up of 36 months, 19 (10.6%) patients developed biochemical recurrence. Of the 19 patients with biochemical failure, 13 had a local recurrence, including 7 who occurred at the site of DIL. Thirty-eight intermediate/high risk patients were included in the matched pair analysis. No statistically significant differences were found in all CTV, PTV, DIL and OAR dosimetric parameters between cases and controls (p > 0.05). For the Cox regression analysis, none of the covariates investigated were found to be statistically significant factors to predict for bPFS, LC-PFS and DIL-PFS. CONCLUSION: No associations between biochemical recurrences and HDR BT dosimetry were identified in our cohort of patients receiving 19 Gy single fraction HDR BT. A large proportion of recurrences occurred at the site of original disease. HDR BT for intermediate/high risk prostate cancer should be undertaken using a minimum of two fractions.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in patients with oligometastatic cancers: a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly being used to treat oligometastatic cancers, but high-level evidence to provide a basis for policy making is scarce. Additional evidence from a real-world setting is required. We present the results of a national study of patients with extracranial oligometastases undergoing SABR, representing the largest dataset, to our knowledge, on outcomes in this population so far. METHODS: In 2015, National Health Service (NHS) England launched a Commissioning through Evaluation scheme that funded a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study of patients with solid cancer and extracranial oligometastases treated with SABR. Prescribed doses ranged from 24-60 Gy administered in three to eight fractions. The study was done at 17 NHS radiotherapy centres in England. Patients were eligible for the scheme if aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary carcinoma (excluding haematological malignancies), one to three extracranial metastatic lesions, a disease-free interval from primary tumour development to metastases of longer than 6 months (with the exception of synchronous colorectal liver metastases), a WHO performance status of 2 or lower, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. The primary outcome was overall survival at 1 year and 2 years from the start of SABR treatment. The study is now completed. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2015, and Jan 30, 2019, 1422 patients were recruited from 17 hospitals in England. The median age of the patients was 69 years (IQR 62-76), and the most common primary tumour was prostate cancer (406 [28·6%] patients). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 6-23). Overall survival was 92·3% (95% CI 90·5-93·9) at 1 year and 79·2% (76·0-82·1) at 2 years. The most common grade 3 adverse event was fatigue (28 [2·0%] of 1422 patients) and the most common serious (grade 4) event was increased liver enzymes (nine [0·6%]). Notreatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with extracranial oligometastatic cancer, use of SABR was associated with high overall survival and low toxicity. 'The study findings complement existing evidence from a randomised, phase 2 trial, and represent high-level, real-world evidence supporting the use of SABR in this patient cohort, with a phase 3 randomised, controlled trial to confirm these findings underway. Based on the selection criteria in this study, SABR was commissioned by NHS England in March, 2020, as a treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. FUNDING: NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation scheme.

Randomised trial of external-beam radiotherapy alone or with high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Mature 12-year results.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A randomised phase-III trial compared external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone with EBRT combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BTb) in localised prostate adenocarcinoma. Previous analysis, at median follow up of 85 months, demonstrated improved relapse free survival (RFS) with EBRT + HDR-BTb. This data has now been updated with a median follow up of 131 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 1997 to August 2005, patients were assigned either to EBRT alone delivering 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or EBRT followed by a temporary high-dose-rate implant delivering 2 × 8·5 Gy over 24 h. The primary endpoint was RFS defined by a PSA rise ≥2.0 µg/l above nadir, clinical progression or death. Actuarial survival rates and Hazard Ratios (HRs) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox's Proportional Hazard Model, respectively. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), urinary and bowel toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients received EBRT alone and 110 EBRT + HDR-BTb. Median time to relapse was 137 months in the HDR-BTb arm compared to 82 months for EBRT alone (p = 0·01). A 27% risk of recurrence with EBRT alone was observed (p = 0·001), resulting in a 21% improvement in RFS at 12 years with EBRT + HDR-BTb. In multivariate analysis treatment arm, risk category and no androgen deprivation therapy were significant covariates for risk of relapse. Differences in overall survival were not significant. CONCLUSION: At 12 years there remains a significant improvement in RFS after EBRT + HDR-BTb; both treatments were equitoxic for severe late urinary and bowel events and urethral strictures.

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0-6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81-1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58-1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020). INTERPRETATION: These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.

Comparison of Whole-Body MRI, CT, and Bone Scintigraphy for Response Evaluation of Cancer Therapeutics in Metastatic Breast Cancer to Bone.

Background CT and bone scintigraphy have limitations in evaluating systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) response in bone metastases from metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Purpose To evaluate whether whole-body MRI enables identification of progressive disease (PD) earlier than CT and bone scintigraphy in bone-only MBC. Materials and Methods This prospective study evaluated participants with bone-only MBC between May 2016 and January 2019 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03266744). Participants were enrolled at initiation of first or subsequent SACT based on standard CT and bone scintigraphy imaging. Baseline whole-body MRI was performed within 2 weeks of entry; those with extraosseous disease were excluded. CT and whole-body MRI were performed every 12 weeks until definitive PD was evident with one or both modalities. In case of PD, bone scintigraphy was used to assess for bone disease progression. Radiologists independently interpreted images from CT, whole-body MRI, or bone scintigraphy and were blinded to results with the other modalities. Systematic differences in performance between modalities were analyzed by using the McNemar test. Results Forty-five participants (mean age, 60 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; all women) were evaluated. Median time on study was 36 weeks (range, 1-120 weeks). Two participants were excluded because of unequivocal evidence of liver metastases at baseline whole-body MRI, two participants were excluded because they had clinical progression before imaging showed PD, and one participant was lost to follow-up. Of the 33 participants with PD at imaging, 67% (22 participants) had PD evident at whole-body MRI only and 33% (11 participants) had PD at CT and whole-body MRI concurrently; none had PD at CT only (P < .001, McNemar test). There was only slight agreement between whole-body MRI and CT (Cohen κ, 0.15). PD at bone scintigraphy was reported in 50% of participants (13 of 26) with bone progression at CT and/or whole-body MRI (P < .001, McNemar test). Conclusion Whole-body MRI enabled identification of progressive disease before CT in most participants with bone-only metastatic breast cancer. Progressive disease at bone scintigraphy was evident in only half of participants with bone progression at whole-body MRI. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Single dose high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) as monotherapy for localised prostate cancer: Early results of a UK national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: HDR brachytherapy alone is effective for the treatment of localised prostate cancer when given in 2-4 or more fractions. Single dose treatment has been explored in small cohort studies to date. This paper reports a large patient population with localised prostate cancer treated with single dose HDR brachytherapy delivering 19 Gy providing early outcome data from this approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven centres across the UK collaborated in this national protocol to deliver 19 Gy to the PTV defined by the prostate capsule and a 3 mm expansion with clearly defined planning constraints for the urethra and rectum. Entry criteria allowed all risk groups provided PSA ≤40 µg/L and staging investigations were negative for metastases. The primary end point was biochemical relapse free survival (bRFS) defined using the Phoenix definition. Toxicity was measured using CTCAE v4.0. RESULTS: A total of 441 patients were entered with median follow up 26 months (range 2-56). Median age was 73 (range 54-84) and 10% were low risk, 65% intermediate risk and 25% high risk. ADT was received by 37.6% overall and 90% of high risk patients for a median period of 6 months. Three year bRFS was overall 88%: this was 100% in low risk, 86% in intermediate risk and 75% in high risk. Only Gleason score was an independent predictor of bRFS. Relapse in 25 patients was assessed radiologically and occurred in the prostate in 15 of these, 11 of whom had localised prostate relapse only. Acute toxicity was low with no grade 3 or 4 events; there were two cases of late urinary stricture and two grade 3 late rectal events. CONCLUSION: This is the largest cohort of single dose HDR brachytherapy patients treated with a single dose published to date. It shows that with 19 Gy there is 100% bRFS at 3 years in low risk patients but results in intermediate and high risk groups are less encouraging falling to 86% and 75% at 3 years with relapse predominantly in the prostate. Limited by the short follow up period of this study, the long-term outcomes of this single dose HDR approach remains uncertain. It is important to have close ongoing surveillance of this cohort as the data matures.

Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0-2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -1·9 percentage points, 95% CI -6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -4·2 percentage points, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity. FUNDING: Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.

Single-dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy compared to two and three fractions for locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Single-dose high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), in a Phase-II study, was compared to two or three fractions in intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 293 patients received 1×19Gy or 1×20Gy (A=49), 2×13Gy (B=138), or 3×10.5Gy (C=106) and assessed with prospective measures of serum PSA, late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity using RTOG scales and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: Median follow-up is 49, 63 and 108months (A, B and C, respectively). At 4years biochemical relapse free survival was 94% (A), 93% (B) and 91% (C) (p=0.54). Risk-category was the only significant independent predictor of relapse (p<0.0001). Kaplan-Meier 4-year-estimates of GU-3 were 2% (A and B) and 11% (C). GI-3 was 0% (A and B) and 1% (C). No GU or GI grade-4 events were observed. IPSS≥20 was 11% (A), 9% (B) and 16% (C) (p=0.9). Prevalence of GU-3 was ≤4% in the 3 groups at all times; GI-3 was low or non-existent. Prevalence of catheter use was ≤6% in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of 19-20Gy achieves similar rates of late morbidity and biochemical control compared to 2 and 3 fractions.

Dosimetric analysis of urethral strictures following HDR (192)Ir brachytherapy as monotherapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate dosimetric parameters related to urethral strictures following high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) alone for prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten strictures were identified in 213 patients treated with HDRBT alone receiving 34Gy in four fractions, 36Gy in four fractions, 31.5Gy in 3 fractions or 26Gy in 2 fractions. A matched-pair analysis used 2 controls for each case matched for dose fractionation schedule, pre-treatment IPSS score, number of needles used and clinical target volume. The urethra was divided into membranous urethra and inferior, mid and superior thirds of the prostatic urethra. RESULTS: Stricture rates were 3% in the 34Gy group, 4% in the 36Gy group, 6% in the 31.5Gy group and 4% in the 26Gy group. The median time to stricture formation was 26months (range 8-40). The dosimetric parameters investigated were not statistically different between cases and controls. No correlation was seen between stricture rate and fractionation schedule. CONCLUSIONS: Urethral stricture is an infrequent complication of prostate HDRBT when used to deliver high doses as sole treatment, with an overall incidence in this cohort of 10/213 (4.7%). In a matched pair analysis no association with dose schedule or urethral dosimetry was identified, but the small number of events limits definitive conclusions.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy with two or three fractions as monotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate late urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) and biochemical control of disease after high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in locally advanced prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 227 consecutive patients were treated with 3 × 10.5 Gy (n = 109) or 2 × 13 Gy (n = 118) HDR-BT alone. Biochemical failure was assessed using the Phoenix definition of PSA nadir + 2 µg/l and late AEs using the RTOG scoring system and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier estimates and prevalence of late events indicate that urinary, bowel and IPSS symptoms are higher after 31.5 Gy than after 26 Gy, however differences are significant only for Grade 1 and 2 urinary toxicity. Kaplan-Meier estimates of morbidity are consistently and considerably higher than time-point estimates of prevalence; which reflects the transient nature of most symptoms. At 3 years 93% and 97% of patients treated with 26 and 31.5 Gy, respectively, were free from biochemical relapse (p = 0.5) and 91% for the latter regimen at 5 years. In univariate and multivariate analysis risk-category was the only significant predictor of relapse (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: These HDR-BT schedules achieved high levels of biochemical control of disease in patients with advanced prostate cancer with few severe complications seen throughout the first 3 years.

Dosimetric predictors of biochemical control of prostate cancer in patients randomised to external beam radiotherapy with a boost of high dose rate brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND: To correlate dose and volume dosimetric parameters (D90 and V100) with biochemical control in advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). METHODS: One hundred and eight patients received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to 35.75 Gy in 13 fractions followed by HDR-BT of 2 × 8.5 Gy. Kaplan-Meier freedom-from-biochemical relapse (FFbR; nadir+2 µg/L) fits were grouped by the first (Q1), second (Q2) and third (Q3) D90 and V100 quartiles. Groups were compared with the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Hazard Ratios (HR) for D90 and V100 and other co-variates (PSA, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were obtained using Cox's proportional hazard model. RESULTS: FFbR was significantly higher in patients whose D90 and V100 were at or above the second and third quartile (log rank p ≤ 0·04). In multivariate analysis D90, V100 were significant covariates for risk of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Dichotomising the data using 6 levels of response (above and below Q1, Q2 and Q3) showed a progressive and continuous improvement in biochemical control of disease across the entire dose (and volume) range. The data show that a minimum D90 of 108% of the prescribed dose should be the target to achieve.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of sunitinib plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in progressive, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated angiogenesis-targeted sunitinib therapy in a randomized, double-blind trial of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg/d continuously or placebo. Patients also received oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS). Two interim analyses were planned. RESULTS: Overall, 873 patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib (n = 584) or placebo (n = 289). The independent data monitoring committee stopped the study for futility after the second interim analysis. After a median overall follow-up of 8.7 months, median OS was 13.1 months and 11.8 months for sunitinib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.914; 95% CI, 0.762 to 1.097; stratified log-rank test, P = .168). PFS was significantly improved in the sunitinib arm (median 5.6 v 4.1 months; HR, 0.725; 95% CI, 0.591 to 0.890; stratified log-rank test, P < .001). Toxicity and rates of discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs; 27% v 7%) were greater with sunitinib than placebo. The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (9% v 1%), asthenia (8% v 2%), and hand-foot syndrome (7% v 0%). Frequent treatment-emergent grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities were lymphopenia (20% v 11%), anemia (9% v 8%), and neutropenia (6% v < 1%). CONCLUSION: The addition of sunitinib to prednisone did not improve OS compared with placebo in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC. The role of antiangiogenic therapy in mCRPC remains investigational.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy alone given as two or one fraction to patients for locally advanced prostate cancer: acute toxicity.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate early urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) after two or one fraction of high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in advanced prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 165 patients were treated with 2 × 13 Gy (n=115), or a single dose of 19 Gy (n=24) or 20 Gy (n=26) HDR-BT. Early AEs were assessed using the RTOG scoring system and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: Week-2 prevalence of severe IPSS symptoms was higher after 20 Gy than after 26 or 19 Gy but by 12 weeks all groups were at pre-treatment levels or less. Grade-3 GU toxicity was observed ≤9% of patients. No Grade 4 GU and no Grade 3 or 4 GI complications were observed. However, there was a significant increase in catheter use in the first 12 weeks after implant after 19 and 20 Gy compared with 2 × 13 Gy. CONCLUSION: Single dose HDR-BT is feasible with acceptable levels of acute complications; tolerance may have been reached with the single 19 Gy schedule.