Impact of Cribriform Pattern and Intraductal Carcinoma on Gleason 7 Prostate Cancer Treated with External Beam Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: We assessed the impact of cribriform pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma on Gleason 7 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy. METHODS: We evaluated men with Gleason 7 (Grade Groups 2 and 3) prostate cancer treated with dose escalated external beam radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation. We reviewed biopsies for the presence of cribriform pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma. Study end points included biochemical recurrence-free, distant metastasis-free and disease specific survival. RESULTS: In the 237 patients median followup was 117 months (range 3 to 236). According to National Comprehensive Cancer Network® risk groups 24% of patients were at favorable intermediate risk, 53% were at unfavorable intermediate risk and 23% were at high risk. The rate of cribriform pattern without intraductal carcinoma, cribriform pattern with intraductal carcinoma, intraductal carcinoma without cribriform pattern and none of these morphologies was 36%, 13%, 0% and 51%, respectively. On multivariable analysis cribriform pattern with intraductal carcinoma (HR 4.22, 95% CI 2.08-8.53, p <0.0001), prostate specific antigen 10 to 20 ng/ml (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.03-3.79, p=0.04) and prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.21-4.23, p=0.01) were associated with worse biochemical recurrence-free survival. On multivariable analysis only cribriform pattern with intraductal carcinoma was associated with inferior distant metastasis-free survival (HR 4.18, 95% CI 1.43-12.28, p=0.01) and disease specific survival (HR 14.26, 95% CI 2.75-74.04, p=0.0016). Factors associated with cribriform pattern with or without intraductal carcinoma included Grade Group 3, high risk group and 50% or more positive biopsy cores. When stratified by neither morphology present, cribriform pattern without intraductal carcinoma and cribriform pattern with intraductal carcinoma the differences in biochemical recurrence-free, distant metastasis-free and disease specific survival were statistically significant (p=0.00042, p=0.017 and p <0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cribriform pattern with intraductal carcinoma was associated with adverse outcomes in men with Gleason 7 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy while cribriform pattern without intraductal carcinoma was not so associated. Future studies may benefit from dichotomizing these 2 histological entities.

Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer.

Importance: The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results: Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

Relief of Urinary Symptom Burden after Primary Prostate Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Harms of prostate cancer treatment on urinary health related quality of life have been thoroughly studied. In this study we evaluated not only the harms but also the potential benefits of prostate cancer treatment in relieving the pretreatment urinary symptom burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In American (1,021) and Spanish (539) multicenter prospective cohorts of men with localized prostate cancer we evaluated the effects of radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy or brachytherapy in relieving pretreatment urinary symptoms and in inducing urinary symptoms de novo, measured by changes in urinary medication use and patient reported urinary bother. RESULTS: Urinary symptom burden improved in 23% and worsened in 28% of subjects after prostate cancer treatment in the American cohort. Urinary medication use rates before treatment and 2 years after treatment were 15% and 6% with radical prostatectomy, 22% and 26% with external radiotherapy, and 19% and 46% with brachytherapy, respectively. Pretreatment urinary medication use (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.0, p = 0.04) and pretreatment moderate lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.6) predicted prostate cancer treatment associated relief of baseline urinary symptom burden. Subjects with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent radical prostatectomy experienced the greatest relief of pretreatment symptoms (OR 4.3, 95% CI 3.0-6.1), despite the development of deleterious de novo urinary incontinence in some men. The magnitude of pretreatment urinary symptom burden and beneficial effect of cancer treatment on those symptoms were verified in the Spanish cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Men with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms may experience benefit rather than harm in overall urinary outcome from primary prostate cancer treatment. Practitioners should consider the full spectrum of urinary symptom burden evident before prostate cancer treatment in treatment decisions.

Intratumoral androgen biosynthesis associated with 3ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 1 promotes resistance to radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

Half of all men with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) inherit at least 1 copy of an adrenal-permissive HSD3B1 (1245C) allele, which increases levels of 3ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 1 (3ßHSD1) and promotes intracellular androgen biosynthesis. Germline inheritance of the adrenally permissive allele confers worse outcomes in men with advanced PCa. We investigated whether HSD3B1 (1245C) drives resistance to combined androgen deprivation and radiotherapy. Adrenally permissive 3ßHSD1 enhanced resistance to radiotherapy in PCa cell lines and xenograft models engineered to mimic the human adrenal/gonadal axis during androgen deprivation. The allele-specific effects on radiosensitivity were dependent on availability of DHEA, the substrate for 3ßHSD1. In lines expressing the HSD3B1 (1245C) allele, enhanced expression of DNA damage response (DDR) genes and more rapid DNA double-strand break (DSB) resolution were observed. A correlation between androgen receptor (AR) expression and increased DDR gene expression was confirmed in 680 radical prostatectomy specimens. Treatment with the nonsteroidal antiandrogen enzalutamide reversed the resistant phenotype of HSD3B1 (1245C) PCa in vitro and in vivo. In conclusion, 3ßHSD1 promotes prostate cancer resistance to combined androgen deprivation and radiotherapy by upregulating DNA DSB repair. This work supports prospective validation of early combined androgen blockade for high-risk men harboring the HSD3B1 (1245C) allele.

Outcomes after PD-103 versus I-125 for low dose rate prostate brachytherapy monotherapy: An international, multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Pd-103 and I-125 are commonly used in low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Comparisons of outcomes by isotope type are limited, but Pd-103 has distinct radiobiologic advantages over I-125 despite its lesser availability outside the United States. We evaluated oncologic outcomes after Pd-103 vs I-125 LDR monotherapy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed databases at 8 institutions for men who received definitive LDR monotherapy with Pd-103 (n = 1,597) or I-125 (n = 7,504) for prostate cancer. Freedom from clinical failure (FFCF) and freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) stratified by isotope were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier univariate and Cox multivariate analyses. Biochemical cure rates (prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 0.2 ng/mL between 3.5 and 4.5 years of follow-up) by isotype were calculated for men with at least 3.5 years of follow-up and compared by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared with I-125, Pd-103 led to higher 7-year rates of FFBF (96.2% vs 87.6%, P < 0.001) and FFCF (96.5% vs 94.3%, P < 0.001). This difference held after multivariate adjustment for baseline factors (FFBF hazard ratio [HR] = 0.31, FFCF HR = 0.49, both P < 0.001). Pd-103 was also associated with higher cure rates on univariate (odds ratio [OR] = 5.9, P < 0.001) and multivariate (OR = 6.0, P < 0.001) analyses. Results retained significance in sensitivity analyses of data from the 4 institutions that used both isotopes (n = 2,971). CONCLUSIONS: Pd-103 monotherapy was associated with higher FFBF, FFCF, and biochemical cure rates, and suggests that Pd-103 LDR may lead to improved oncologic outcomes compared with I-125.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Survival among men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy in the prostate specific antigen era.

PURPOSE: Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy are accepted treatments for localized prostate cancer. However, it is unknown if survival differences exist among treatments. We analyzed the survival of patients treated with these modalities according to contemporary standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10,429 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (6,485), external beam radiotherapy (2,264) or brachytherapy (1,680) were identified. Multivariable regression analyses were used to model the disease (biopsy grade, clinical stage, prostate specific antigen) and patient specific (age, ethnicity, comorbidity) parameters for overall survival and prostate cancer specific mortality. Propensity score analysis was used to adjust for differences in observed background characteristics. RESULTS: The adjusted 10-year overall survival after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy was 88.9%, 82.6% and 81.7%, respectively. Adjusted 10-year prostate cancer specific mortality was 1.8%, 2.9% and 2.3%, respectively. Using propensity score analysis, external beam radiotherapy was associated with decreased overall survival (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4-1.9, p<0.001) and increased prostate cancer specific mortality (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, p=0.041) compared to radical prostatectomy. Brachytherapy was associated with decreased overall survival (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.1, p<0.001) but not prostate cancer specific mortality (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.4, p=0.5) compared to radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for major confounders, radical prostatectomy was associated with a small but statistically significant improvement in overall and cancer specific survival. These survival differences may arise from an imbalance of confounders, differences in treatment related mortality and/or improved cancer control when radical prostatectomy is performed as initial therapy.

Coronary intravascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis: A review of the contemporary literature.

Intracoronary stent restenosis (ISR) is a clinically relevant challenge in the modern era. Heterogeneity in patient- and lesion-specific factors can further compound this clinical challenge. Coronary intravascular brachytherapy (IVBT) was the standard therapeutic approach for ISR prior to the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES). Despite prospective data describing the superiority of DES over IVBT for treating de novo ISR, IVBT remains a treatment option for patients with complex disease. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the historical and contemporary literature surrounding IVBT in order to elucidate its role in modern cardiac care and to describe opportunities for future investigations to improve patient selection. Herein, we provide a review of the contemporary literature describing IVBT as a safe and effective treatment option for patients with recurrent, refractory ISR after multilayer DES and no good surgical or mechanical option. Combination therapy with emerging technologies such as DCBs may further increase efficacy.

125I Interstitial brachytherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy among unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): To determine if patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR), high-risk (HR), or very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with 125I interstitial brachytherapy benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). MATERIALS/METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database of patients with UIR, HR, or VHR PCa, per 2018 NCCN risk classification, treated with definitive 125I interstitial brachytherapy with or without ADT from 1998-2017. Outcomes including biochemical failure (bF), distant metastases (DM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) was analyzed with Fine-Gray competing-risk regression. RESULTS: Of 1033 patients, 262 (25%) received ADT and 771 (75%) did not. Median ADT duration was 6 months. By risk group, 764 (74%) patients were UIR, 219 (21%) HR, and 50 (5%) VHR. ADT was more frequently given to HR (50%) and VHR (56%) patients compared to UIR (16%; p<0.001), to older patients (p<0.001), corresponding with increasing PSA (p<0.001) and Grade Group (p<0.001). Median follow-up was 4.9 years (0.3-17.6 years). On multivariable analysis accounting for risk group, age, and year of treatment, ADT was not associated with bF, DM, PCSM, or OS (p≥0.05 each). CONCLUSION: Among patients with UIR, HR, and VHR PCa, the addition of ADT to 125I interstitial brachytherapy was not associated with improved outcomes, and no subgroup demonstrated benefit. Our findings do not support the use of ADT in combination with 125I interstitial brachytherapy. Prospective studies are required to elucidate the role of ADT for patients with UIR, HR, and VHR PCa treated with prostate brachytherapy.

Interplay Between Duration of Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Optimal Treatment of High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Patient-Level Data Analysis of 3 Cohorts.

IMPORTANCE: Radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard of care for high-risk prostate cancer. However, the interplay between radiotherapy dose and the required minimum duration of ADT is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the specific ADT duration threshold that provides a distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) benefit in patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cohort study of 3 cohorts assembled from a multicenter retrospective study (2000-2013); a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy 03/04 (RADAR; 2003-2007) randomized clinical trial (RCT); and a cross-trial comparison of the RADAR vs the Deprivación Androgénica y Radio Terapía (Androgen Deprivation and Radiation Therapy; DART) 01/05 RCT (2005-2010). In all, the study analyzed 1827 patients treated with EBRT and 1108 patients treated with EBRT+BT from the retrospective cohort; 181 treated with EBRT and 203 with EBRT+BT from RADAR; and 91 patients treated with EBRT from DART. The study was conducted from October 15, 2020, to July 1, 2021, and the data analyses, from January 5 to June 15, 2021. EXPOSURES: High-dose EBRT or EBRT+BT for an ADT duration determined by patient-physician choice (retrospective) or by randomization (RCTs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was DMFS; secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum thresholds (months). RESULTS: This cohort study of 3 studies totaling 3410 men (mean age [SD], 68 [62-74] years; race and ethnicity not collected) with high-risk prostate cancer found a significant interaction between the treatment type (EBRT vs EBRT+BT) and ADT duration (binned to <6, 6 to <18, and ≥18 months). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum duration thresholds of 26.3 months (95% CI, 25.4-36.0 months) for EBRT and 12 months (95% CI, 4.9-36.0 months) for EBRT+BT for optimal effect on DMFS. In RADAR, the prolongation of ADT for patients receiving only EBRT was not associated with significant improvements in DMFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.65-1.57); however, for patients receiving EBRT+BT, a longer duration was associated with improved DMFS (DMFS HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P = .01). For patients receiving EBRT alone (DART), 28 months of ADT was associated with improved DMFS compared with 18 months (RADAR HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.80; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These cohort study findings suggest that the optimal minimum ADT duration for treatment with high-dose EBRT alone is more than 18 months; and for EBRT+BT, it is 18 months or possibly less. Additional studies are needed to determine more precise minimum durations.

Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify determinants of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of prostate cancer and to measure the effects of such determinants on satisfaction with the outcome of treatment in patients and their spouses or partners. METHODS: We prospectively measured outcomes reported by 1201 patients and 625 spouses or partners at multiple centers before and after radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, or external-beam radiotherapy. We evaluated factors that were associated with changes in quality of life within study groups and determined the effects on satisfaction with the treatment outcome. RESULTS: Adjuvant hormone therapy was associated with worse outcomes across multiple quality-of-life domains among patients receiving brachytherapy or radiotherapy. Patients in the brachytherapy group reported having long-lasting urinary irritation, bowel and sexual symptoms, and transient problems with vitality or hormonal function. Adverse effects of prostatectomy on sexual function were mitigated by nerve-sparing procedures. After prostatectomy, urinary incontinence was observed, but urinary irritation and obstruction improved, particularly in patients with large prostates. No treatment-related deaths occurred; serious adverse events were rare. Treatment-related symptoms were exacerbated by obesity, a large prostate size, a high prostate-specific antigen score, and older age. Black patients reported lower satisfaction with the degree of overall treatment outcomes. Changes in quality of life were significantly associated with the degree of outcome satisfaction among patients and their spouses or partners. CONCLUSIONS: Each prostate-cancer treatment was associated with a distinct pattern of change in quality-of-life domains related to urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal function. These changes influenced satisfaction with treatment outcomes among patients and their spouses or partners.

Prediction of erectile function following treatment for prostate cancer.

CONTEXT: Sexual function is the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domain most commonly impaired after prostate cancer treatment; however, validated tools to enable personalized prediction of erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To predict long-term erectile function following prostate cancer treatment based on individual patient and treatment characteristics. DESIGN: Pretreatment patient characteristics, sexual HRQOL, and treatment details measured in a longitudinal academic multicenter cohort (Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment; enrolled from 2003 through 2006), were used to develop models predicting erectile function 2 years after treatment. A community-based cohort (community-based Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor [CaPSURE]; enrolled 1995 through 2007) externally validated model performance. Patients in US academic and community-based practices whose HRQOL was measured pretreatment (N = 1201) underwent follow-up after prostatectomy, external radiotherapy, or brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Sexual outcomes among men completing 2 years' follow-up (n = 1027) were used to develop models predicting erectile function that were externally validated among 1913 patients in a community-based cohort. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported functional erections suitable for intercourse 2 years following prostate cancer treatment. RESULTS: Two years after prostate cancer treatment, 368 (37% [95% CI, 34%-40%]) of all patients and 335 (48% [95% CI, 45%-52%]) of those with functional erections prior to treatment reported functional erections; 531 (53% [95% CI, 50%-56%]) of patients without penile prostheses reported use of medications or other devices for erectile dysfunction. Pretreatment sexual HRQOL score, age, serum prostate-specific antigen level, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and intended treatment details were associated with functional erections 2 years after treatment. Multivariable logistic regression models predicting erectile function estimated 2-year function probabilities from as low as 10% or less to as high as 70% or greater depending on the individual's pretreatment patient characteristics and treatment details. The models performed well in predicting erections in external validation among CaPSURE cohort patients (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74-0.80] for prostatectomy; 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.94] for external radiotherapy; and 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95] for brachytherapy). CONCLUSION: Stratification by pretreatment patient characteristics and treatment details enables prediction of erectile function 2 years after prostatectomy, external radiotherapy, or brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

Performance of a Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography-Derived Risk-Stratification Tool for High-risk and Very High-risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect low-volume, nonlocalized (ie, regional or metastatic) prostate cancer that was occult on conventional imaging. However, the long-term clinical implications of PSMA PET/CT upstaging remain unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual's risk of nonlocalized upstaging on PSMA PET/CT and to compare its performance with existing risk-stratification tools. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients diagnosed with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8-10, and/or clinical stage T3-T4, without evidence of nodal or metastatic disease by conventional workup) from April 1995 to August 2018. This multinational study was conducted at 15 centers. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Curative-intent radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: PSMA upstage probability was calculated from a nomogram using the biopsy Gleason score, percentage positive systematic biopsy cores, clinical T category, and PSA level. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Fine-Gray and Cox regressions. Model performance was quantified with the concordance (C) index. Results: Of 5275 patients, the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years; 2883 (55%) were treated with RP, 1669 (32%) with EBRT, and 723 (14%) with EBRT plus BT; median (IQR) PSA level was 10.5 (5.9-23.2) ng/mL; 3987 (76%) had Gleason grade 8 to 10 disease; and 750 (14%) had stage T3 to T4 disease. Median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (3.1-7.9) years; 1221 (23%) were followed up for at least 8 years. Overall, 1895 (36%) had BCR, 851 (16%) developed DM, and 242 (5%) died of prostate cancer. PSMA upstage probability was significantly prognostic of all clinical end points, with 8-year C indices of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for BCR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) for DM, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for PCSM, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.62) for PCSM (P < .001). The PSMA nomogram outperformed existing risk-stratification tools, except for similar performance to Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP) for PCSM (eg, DM: PSMA, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71] vs STAR-CAP, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]; P < .001; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60]; P < .001; Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment groups, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.56]; P < .001). Results were validated in secondary cohorts from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and the National Cancer Database. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that PSMA upstage probability is associated with long-term, clinically meaningful end points. Furthermore, PSMA upstaging had superior risk discrimination compared with existing tools. Formerly occult, PSMA PET/CT-detectable nonlocalized disease may be the main driver of outcomes in high-risk patients.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Patterns of Clinical Progression in Radiorecurrent High-risk Prostate Cancer.

The natural history of radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) is not well-described. To better understand its clinical course, we evaluated rates of distant metastases (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a cohort of 978 men with radiorecurrent HRPCa who previously received either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 654, 67%) or EBRT + brachytherapy (EBRT + BT, n = 324, 33%) across 15 institutions from 1997 to 2015. In men who did not die, median follow-up after treatment was 8.9 yr and median follow-up after biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 3.7 yr. Local and systemic therapy salvage, respectively, were delivered to 21 and 390 men after EBRT, and eight and 103 men after EBRT + BT. Overall, 435 men developed DM, and 248 were detected within 1 yr of BCR. Measured from time of recurrence, 5-yr DM rates were 50% and 34% after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. Measured from BCR, 5-yr PCSM rates were 27% and 29%, respectively. Interval to BCR was independently associated with DM (p < 0.001) and PCSM (p < 0.001). These data suggest that radiorecurrent HRPCa has an aggressive natural history and that DM is clinically evident early after BCR. These findings underscore the importance of further investigations into upfront risk assessment and prompt systemic evaluation upon recurrence in HRPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: High-risk prostate cancer that recurs after radiation therapy is an aggressive disease entity and spreads to other parts of the body (metastases). Some 60% of metastases occur within 1 yr. Approximately 30% of these patients die from their prostate cancer.

Association of body mass index with prostate cancer biochemical failure.

PURPOSE: The association between obesity and biochemical failure measured by prostate specific antigen after prostate cancer treatment is controversial. We determined whether there is an association between body mass index and biochemical failure in men treated for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer with various treatment modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cohort study in 2,687 patients who underwent treatment for low and intermediate risk prostate adenocarcinoma as described by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at Cleveland Clinic between January 1996 and December 2005. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to determine the effect of multiple patient characteristics on biochemical failure. RESULTS: There were 319 biochemical failures (11.9%). Body mass index as a continuous variable was significantly associated with biochemical failure on univariate analysis (HR 1.030, p = 0.02). There was a significant association with biochemical failure when comparing normal vs overweight and normal vs obese men but not overweight vs obese men. On multivariate analysis body mass index as a continuous or a categorical variable was not significantly associated with biochemical failure. Multivariate analysis revealed certain variables significantly associated with biochemical failure, including black race, greater initial prostate specific antigen, Gleason score 7, treatment type and more frequent prostate specific antigen screening. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant association between body mass index and biochemical failure on univariate analysis that did not hold true on multivariate analysis. Black race was associated with biochemical failure on multivariate analysis. The reason for this is unclear. Future studies should further characterize the relationship between race and biochemical failure.

Early intervention with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors after prostate brachytherapy improves subsequent erectile function.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the early use of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (PDE-5i; sildenafil citrate) in preventing subsequent erectile dysfunction (ED) after (monotherapy) prostate brachytherapy (PB, an accepted option for Gleason 6 or low-volume Gleason 7 prostate cancer), as PB is currently being offered more frequently in younger patients, and ED can be a side-effect often within the first 12 months after treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined a single-surgeon series of 69 patients who had been treated with PB from 2002 to 2005. All patients had a follow-up of ≥ 1 year; prospectively, and patients had baseline, 6- and 12-month assessments using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-6 scores. The 69 patients were divided into early treatment with PDE-5i (31) and not treated with PDE-5i (38), and their SHIM and IIEF-6 scores were compared at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Daily sildenafil (25-50 mg) was given immediately after PB for 12 months. Overall, for the entire group, the mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 6.8 ng/mL; 78% had Gleason 6 cancer and 20% had Gleason 7 (3 + 4) cancer. The mean age in the early PDE-5i group was 64.8 years, and was 66.0 years in the no-PDE-5i group. The mean radiation dose in the early PDE-5i group was 50.2 Gy, and 43.9 Gy in the other group (P= 0.08). RESULTS: In the no-PDE-5i group, the mean baseline SHIM score of 17.1 decreased rapidly to 9.1 at 6 months (P= 0.01) and stayed at 9.3 at 12 months (P= 0.01). In the early PDE-5i group, the mean baseline SHIM score of 21.8 decreased slightly to 17.6 at 6 months (P= 0.2), and was maintained at 17.9 at 12 months (P= 0.2). Using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, the 6- and 12-month SHIM scores in the two groups (P < 0.001). The IIEF-6 questionnaire confirmed the SHIM analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After PB patients had a significant decline in SHIM/IIEF-6 scores at 6 and 12 months. Our results indicate a 50% decrease in the quality of their erections. This provides an opportunity to initiate early intervention with PDE-5i or perhaps vacuum constriction devices or intraurethral alprostadil. In this study, the early use of PDE-5i after PB maintained erectile function at both 6 and 12 months.

The current status of image-guided external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the current status and technological advances in image-guided external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Modern imaging has improved the ability to define radiotherapy target volumes. Specifically, treatment margins have been reduced through the use of treatment planning and image-guidance technology. Increasing dose has led to increased disease control. Concurrent technological advances may improve treatment-related toxicity. Data continues to emerge on patient selection, treatment schedule, and use of additional systemic therapy in conjunction with radiation. SUMMARY: In the present article, we review recent developments in radiation planning, image guidance, patient selection and fractionation, dose escalation, toxicity, systemic therapy, and follow-up.

Validation of the NCCN prostate cancer favorable- and unfavorable-intermediate risk groups among men treated with I-125 low dose rate brachytherapy monotherapy.

PURPOSE: To validate the 2019 NCCN subgroups of favorable- and unfavorable-intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer among patients treated with brachytherapy, who are underrepresented in the studies used to develop the 2019 NCCN classification. METHODS: We included all 2,705 men treated with I-125 LDR brachytherapy monotherapy at a single institution, and who could be classified into the 2019 NCCN risk groups. Biochemical failure and distant metastasis rates were calculated using cumulative incidence analysis. RESULTS: Of 1,510 IR patients, 756 (50%) were favorable-IR, and 754 (50%) were unfavorable-IR. Median follow up was 48 months (range, 3-214). As compared to favorable-IR, the unfavorable-IR group was associated with significantly higher rates of biochemical failure (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.00-4.10; p < 0.001) and distant metastasis (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.78-5.50, p < 0.001). For favorable-IR vs. unfavorable-IR groups, 5-year estimates of biochemical failure were 4.3% (95% CI, 2.6-6.1%) vs. 17.0% (95% CI, 13.6-20.5%; p < 0.001), and for distant metastasis were 1.6% (95% CI, 0.5-2.6%) vs. 5.4% (95% CI, 3.3-7.4%; p < 0.001), respectively. Patients with one unfavorable-intermediate risk factor (unfavorable-IRF; HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.54-3.36; p < 0.001) and 2-3 unfavorable-IRFs (HR, 4.42; 95% CI, 2.89-6.76; p < 0.001) had higher biochemical failure rates; similar findings were observed for distant metastasis (1 unfavorable-IRF: HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.34-4.53, p = 0.004; 2-3 unfavorable-IRFs: HR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.49-9.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings validate the prognostic utility of the 2019 NCCN favorable-IR and unfavorable-IR prostate cancer subgroups among men treated with brachytherapy. Androgen deprivation was not beneficial in any subgroup. Alternative treatment intensification strategies for unfavorable-IR patients are warranted.

A biochemical definition of cure after brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To identify a PSA threshold value at an intermediate follow-up time after low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy associated with cure, defined as long-term (10-15 year) freedom from prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 7 institutions for 14,220 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with LDR brachytherapy, either alone (8552) or with external beam radiotherapy (n = 1175), androgen deprivation (n = 3165), or both (n = 1328), were analyzed. Risk distribution was 42.4% favorable, 49.2% intermediate, and 8.4% high-risk. Patients with clinical failure before 3.5 years were excluded. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used with clinical failure (local, distant, regional or biochemical triggering salvage) as an endpoint for each of four PSA categories: PSA ≤ 0.2, >0.2 to ≤0.5, >0.5 to ≤1.0, and >1.0 ng/mL. PSA levels at 4 years (±6 months) in 8746 patients without clinical failure were correlated with disease status at 10-15 years. RESULTS: For the 77.1% of patients with 4-year PSA ≤ 0.2, the freedom-from-recurrence (FFR) rates were 98.7% (95% CI 98.3-99.0) at 10 years and 96.1% (95% CI 94.8-97.2) at 15 years. Three independent validation cohorts confirmed 97-99% 10-year FFR rates with 4-year PSA ≤ 0.2. Successive PSA categories were associated with diminished disease-free rates at 10 and 15 years. PSA category was strongly associated with treatment success (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Since 98.7% of patients with PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/mL at 4 years after LDR prostate brachytherapy were disease-free beyond 10 years, we suggest adopting this biochemical definition of cure for patients with ≥4 years' follow-up after LDR brachytherapy.