Managing postoperative biochemical relapse in prostate cancer, from the perspective of the Francophone group of Urological radiotherapy (GFRU).

Up to 50% of patients treated with radical surgery for localized prostate cancer may experience biochemical recurrence that requires appropriate management. Definitions of biochemical relapse may vary, but, in all cases, consist of an increase in a PSA without clinical or radiological signs of disease. Molecular imaging through to positron emission tomography has taken a preponderant place in relapse diagnosis, progressively replacing bone scan and CT-scan. Prostate bed radiotherapy is currently a key treatment, the action of which should be potentiated by androgen deprivation therapy. Nowadays perspectives consist in determining the best combination therapies, particularly thanks to next-generation hormone therapies, but not exclusively. Several trials are ongoing and should address these issues. We present here a literature review aiming to discuss the current management of biochemical relapse in prostate cancer after radical surgery, in lights of recent findings, as well as future perspectives.

Prostate Bed Delineation Guidelines for Postoperative Radiation Therapy: On Behalf Of The Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Prostate bed (PB) irradiation is considered the standard postoperative treatment after radical prostatectomy (RP) for tumors with high-risk features or persistent prostate-specific antigen, or for salvage treatment in case of biological relapse. Four consensus guidelines have been published to standardize practices and reduce the interobserver variability in PB delineation but with discordant recommendations. To improve the reproducibility in the PB delineation, the Francophone Group of Urological Radiotherapy (Groupe Francophone de Radiothérapie Urologique [GFRU]) worked to propose a new and more reproducible consensus guideline for PB clinical target volume (CTV) definition. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 4-step procedure was used. First, a group of 10 GFRU prostate experts evaluated the 4 existing delineation guidelines for postoperative radiation therapy (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; the Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group; the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; and the Princess Margaret Hospital) to identify divergent issues. Second, data sets of 50 magnetic resonance imaging studies (25 after RP and 25 with an intact prostate gland) were analyzed to identify the relevant anatomic boundaries of the PB. Third, a literature review of surgical, anatomic, histologic, and imaging data was performed to identify the relevant PB boundaries. Fourth, a final consensus on PB CTV definition was reached among experts. RESULTS: Definitive limits of the PB CTV delineation were defined using easily visible landmarks on computed tomography scans (CT). The purpose was to ensure a better reproducibility of PB definition for any radiation oncologist even without experience in postoperative radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: New recommendations for PB delineation based on simple anatomic boundaries and available as a CT image atlas are proposed by the GFRU. Improvement in uniformity in PB CTV definition and treatment homogeneity in the context of clinical trials are expected.

Localization of the surgical bed using supine magnetic resonance and computed tomography scan fusion for planification of breast interstitial brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of supine breast magnetic resonance imaging (MR) for definition and localization of the surgical bed (SB) after breast conservative surgery. To assess the inter-observer variability of surgical bed delineation on computed tomography (CT) and supine MR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients candidate for breast brachytherapy and no contra-indications for MR were eligible for this study. Patients were placed in supine position, with the ipsilateral arm above the head in an immobilization device. All patients underwent CT and MR in the same implant/treatment position. Four points were predefined for CT-MRI image fusion. The surgical cavity was drawn on CT then MRI, by three independent observers. Fusion and analysis of CT and MR images were performed using the ECLIPSE treatment planning software. RESULTS: From September 2005 to November 2008, 70 patients were included in this prospective study. For each patient, we were able to acquire axial T1 and T2 images of good quality. Using the predefined fusion points, the median error following the fusion was 2.7 mm. For each observer, volumes obtained on MR were, respectively, 30%, 38% and 40% smaller than those derived from CT images. A highly significant inter-observer variability in the delineation of the SB on CT was demonstrated (p<0.0001). On the contrary, all three observers agreed on the volume of the SB drawn on MR. CONCLUSION: Supine breast MRI yields a more precise definition of the SB with a smaller inter-observer variability than CT and may obviate the need for surgical clips. The volume of the SB is smaller with MRI. In our opinion, CT-MRI fusion should be used for SB delineation, in view of partial breast irradiation.