A comparative analysis between low-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in Asian men.

OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term clinical outcomes of low-risk (LR) and intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer patients treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with biopsy-proven low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer received EBRT and LDR-BT in an Asian academic center from 2000 to 2019 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) and overall survival (OS) between LDR and EBRT in the low- and intermediate-risk cohorts. RESULTS: 642 patients (521 EBRT and 121 LDR-BT) with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were included for analysis. In the intermediate-risk group, 5- and 10-year bFFS was 96%, 89% and 86%, 61% for LDR-BT and EBRT, respectively. LDR-BT was associated with a statistically significant improvement of bFFS in the intermediate-risk cohort (HR 2.7, p = 0.02). In the low-risk cohort, no difference of bFFS was found between LDR-BT and EBRT (HR 1.9, p = 0.08). Hormone therapy was more common in EBRT than LDR-BT for intermediate-risk group (71% versus 44%, p < 0.05). Prostate cancer-specific mortality was low in both EBRT (1%) and LDR-BT (2%) cohorts. No significant difference in OS was found between LDR-BT and EBRT in low- and intermediate-risk group (HR 2.1, p = 0.2 and HR = 1.7, p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: In our retrospective study, LDR-BT is associated with superior bFFS compared with EBRT in Asian men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

An assessment of the magnitude of intra-fraction movement of head-and-neck IMRT cases and its implication on the action-level of the imaging protocol.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A planning margin ⩽3 mm is employed in some head-and-neck IMRT cases due to the proximity of critical structures. This study aims to explore the need to redefine the action-level in the head-and-neck imaging protocol in consideration of the intra-fraction movement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a local study of 18 patients treated using the same immobilisation system and setup protocol. Post-treatment orthogonal pair of kilovoltage X-ray images was acquired on the first three days of treatment. 106 sets of pre- and post-treatment kV X-ray images acquired over 53 fractions were analysed against the treatment planning DRR for calculation of intra-fraction movement. RESULTS: Individual mean intra-fraction movement in all directions ranged from -1.8 to 1.1 mm. Population mean (median) intra-fraction movement in the x-, y-, and z-planes were -0.1 mm (0 mm), -0.3 mm (-0.3 mm) and -0.2 mm (-0.2 mm) respectively. Intra-fraction movement in all three dimensions, x-, y- and z-planes were considered statistically significant (p<0.05). 7 out of 53 fractions (13.2%) were highlighted as the combined magnitude of the intra-fraction motion with the uncorrected pre-treatment setup errors had exceeded the boundaries of given margins. CONCLUSIONS: 3 mm-AL was not adequate to account for intra-fraction movement when the CTV-PTV margin was ⩽3 mm and should be excluded from the routine imaging protocol and daily image-guided radiotherapy should be employed. Adjusting the action-level to 2 mm would allow a more confident approach in delivery of the prescribed dose in head-and-neck IMRT cases.