Associations of Clinical and Dosimetric Parameters with Urinary Toxicities after Prostate Brachytherapy: A Long-Term Single-Institution Experience.

To examine the association of clinical, treatment, and dose parameters with late urinary toxicity after low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) for prostate cancer, we retrospectively studied patients with prostate cancer who underwent LDR-BT from January 2007 through December 2016. Urinary toxicity was assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Overactive Bladder (OAB) Symptom Score (OABSS). Severe and moderate lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were defined as IPSS ≥ 20 and ≥ 8, respectively; OAB was defined as a nocturnal frequency of ≥ 2 and a total OABSS of ≥ 3. In total, 203 patients (median age: 66 years) were included, with a mean follow-up of 8.4 years after treatment. The IPSS and OABSS worsened after 3 months of treatment; these scores improved to pretreatment levels after 18-36 months in most patients. Patients with a higher baseline IPSS and OABSS had a higher frequency of moderate and severe LUTS and OAB at 24 and 60 months, respectively. LUTS and OAB at 24 and 60 months were not correlated with the dosimetric factors of LDR-BT. Although the rate of long-term urinary toxicities assessed using IPSS and OABSS was low, the baseline scores were related to long-term function. Refining patient selection may further reduce long-term urinary toxicity.

Using the Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort to measure the effect of active surveillance on patient-reported urinary and sexual function-a retrospective study in low-risk prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is intended to overcome potential side-effects of definitive treatment. Frequent prostate biopsies during AS may, however, impact erectile (EF) and urinary function (UF). The objective of this study was to test the influence of prostate biopsies on patient-reported EF and UF using multicenter data from the largest to-date AS-database. METHODS: In this retrospective study, data analyses were performed using the Movember GAP3 database (v3.2), containing data from 21,169 AS participants from 27 AS-cohorts worldwide. Participants were included in the study if they had at least one follow-up prostate biopsy and completed at least one patient reported outcome measure (PROM) related to EF [Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM)/five item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5)] or UF [International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)] during follow-up. The longitudinal effect of the number of biopsies on either SHIM/IIEF-5 or IPSS were analyzed using linear mixed models to adjust for clustering at patient-level. Analyses were stratified by center; covariates included age and Gleason Grade group at diagnosis, and time on AS. RESULTS: A total of 696 participants completed the SHIM/IIEF-5 3,175 times, with a median follow-up of 36 months [interquartile range (IQR) 20-55 months]. A total of 845 participants completed the IPSS 4,061 times, with a median follow-up of 35 months (IQR 19-56 months). The intraclass correlation (ICC) was 0.74 for the SHIM/IIEF-5 and 0.68 for the IPSS, indicating substantial differences between participants' PROMs. Limited heterogeneity between cohorts in the estimated effect of the number of biopsies on either PROM were observed. A significant association was observed between the number of biopsies and the SHIM/IIEF-5 score, but not for the IPSS score. Every biopsy was associated with a decrease in the SHIM/IIEF-5 score of an average 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.88) points. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated prostate biopsy as part of an AS protocol for men with low-risk PCa does not have a significant association with self-reported UF but does impact self-reported sexual function. Further research is, however, needed to understand whether the effect on sexual function implies a negative clinical impact on their quality of life and is meaningful from a patient's perspective. In the meantime, clinicians and patients should anticipate a potential decline in erectile function and hence consider incorporating the risk of this harm into their discussion about opting for AS and also when deciding on the stringency of follow-up biopsy schedules with long-term AS.

Prostatic Artery Embolization Allows to Maintain Full Sexual Activity in Patients Suffering from Bothersome Lower Urinary Tracts Symptoms related to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of prostate artery embolization (PAE) on male sexual function is currently the subject of debate in the literature. The main purpose of this study was to define changes in all domains of sexual activity after PAE, using the international index of erectile function score (IIEF-15). METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted on 129 patients (mean age of 65.5 ± 7 years), who underwent PAE from February 2014 to January 2017 for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Fifty consecutive patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were evaluated before and after PAE follow-up using the IIEF-15, IPSS, prostate volume (PV) and cardiovascular risk factor and BPH drugs. The IIEF-15 domains analyzed were: erectile function (EF) ejaculation and orgasm (Ej/O), sexual desire (SD), intercourse satisfaction (IS) and overall satisfaction (OS). A paired sample t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare IIEF-15 between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: The study showed nonsignificant change in IIEF-15 total score (58.0 ± 13.8 SD; p = 0.71) and the five domains (EF 24.5 ± 7.0 SD, p = 0.82; EJ/O 8.2 ± 2.3 SD, p = 0.50; SD 7.2 ± 2.7 SD, p = 0.57; IS 10.3 ± 3.0 SD, p = 0.77; OS 8.2 ± 2.7 SD; p = 0.11) after PAE. We also found a significant improvement in IPSS score after PAE. CONCLUSION: Based on the IIEF-15 questionnaire, PAE was showed to allow good urinary symptoms results and no deterioration in sexual function.

Acute toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated proton therapy (HFPT) is expected to become an effective treatment approach for localized prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in acute toxicity among patients with localized PCa treated with either conventional fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) or HFPT. METHODS: A total of 526 eligible patients treated with proton therapy between February 2013 and May 2016 in three phase II trials were analyzed. We prescribed 74 gray relative biological effectiveness equivalents [Gy (RBE)]/37 fractions for low-risk patients and 78 Gy (RBE)/39 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the CFPT group (n = 254) and 60 Gy (RBE)/20 fractions for low-risk and 63 Gy (RBE)/21 fractions for intermediate- and high-risk patients in the HFPT group (n = 272). Patients were evaluated for acute toxicity with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and urinary quality-of-life change using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: No grade ≥3 acute toxicity was observed in either group. Among acute genitourinary toxicities, grade 2 rates were 15% (n = 38) in CFPT and 5.9% (n = 16) in HFPT (P ≤ 0.001). The median baseline IPSSs of the CFPT and HFPT groups were 7 (0-29) and 6 (0-31), respectively (P = 0.70). One-month post-treatment scores were 9 (0-32) and 11 (0-32), respectively (P = 0.036), and 6-month post-treatment scores were 7 (0-30) and 7 (0-33), respectively (P = 0.88). There were no significant differences in acute gastrointestinal toxicity between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated the safety of HFPT for localized PCa patients in terms of acute toxicity.

A prospective randomised controlled study comparing bipolar plasma vaporisation of the prostate to monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of bipolar transurethral plasma vaporisation (B-TUVP) as an alternative to the 'gold standard' monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective randomised controlled study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 82 patients indicated for prostatectomy were assigned to two groups, group I (40 patients) underwent B-TUVP and group II (42 patients) underwent M-TURP. The safety of both techniques was evaluated by reporting perioperative changes in serum Na+, serum K+, haematocrit (packed cell volume), and any perioperative complications. For the efficacy assessment, patients were evaluated subjectively by comparing the improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score and objectively by measuring the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) before and after the procedures. RESULTS: In group II, there was a significant perioperative drop in serum Na+ (from 137.5 to 129.4 mmol/L) and haematocrit (from 42.9% to 38.2%) (both P < 0.001). Moreover, one patient in group II had TUR syndrome. The remote postoperative complication rate was (15%) in group I and comprised of stress urinary incontinence (5%), bladder outlet obstruction (5%), and residual adenoma (5%). In group II, the remote postoperative complication rate was (4.8%), as two patients developed urethral stricture. There were statistically significant improvements in micturition variables postoperatively in both arms, but the magnitude of improvement was statistically more significant in group II. CONCLUSION: B-TUPV seems to be safer than M-TURP; however, the lack of a tissue specimen and the relatively high retreatment rate are major disadvantages of the B-TUVP technique. Moreover, M-TURP appears to be more effective than B-TUPV and its safety can be improved by careful case selection and adequate haemostasis.

After low and high dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy followed by IMRT radiotherapy for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare urinary symptoms in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer after a combination of either low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy along with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (LDR-ISBT + IMRT or HDR-ISBT + IMRT). METHODS: From June 2009 to April 2014, 16 and 22 patients were treated with LDR-ISBT + IMRT and HDR-ISBT + IMRT, respectively. No patient from these groups was excluded from this study. The prescribed dose of LDR-ISBT, HDR-ISBT, and IMRT was 115 Gy, 20 Gy in 2 fractions, and 46 Gy in 23 fractions, respectively. Obstructive and irritative urinary symptoms were assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) examined before and after treatments. After ISBT, IPSS was evaluated in the 1st and 4th weeks, then every 2-3 months for the 1st year, and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: The median follow-up of the patients treated with LDR-ISBT + IMRT and HDR-ISBT + IMRT was 1070.5 days and 1048.5 days, respectively (p = 0.321). The IPSS-increment in the LDR-ISBT + IMRT group was greater than that in the HDR-ISBT + IMRT between 91 and 180 days after ISBT (p = 0.015). In the LDR-ISBT + IMRT group, the IPSS took longer time to return to the initial level than in the HDR-ISBT + IMRT group (in LDR-ISBT + IMRT group, the recovery time was 90 days later). The dose to urethra showed a statistically significant association with the IPSS-increment in the irritative urinary symptoms (p = 0.011). Clinical outcomes were comparable between both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both therapeutic modalities are safe and well suited for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer; however, it took patients longer to recover from LDR-ISBT + IMRT than from HDR-ISBT + IMRT. It is possible that fast dose delivery induced early symptoms and early recovery, while gradual dose delivery induced late symptoms and late recovery. Urethral dose reductions were associated with small increments in IPSS.