Mortality reduction and cumulative excess incidence (CEI) in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening era.

The extent to which PSA screening is related to prostate cancer mortality reduction in the United States (US) is controversial. US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data from 1980 to 2016 were examined to assess the relationship between prostate cancer mortality and cumulative excess incidence (CEI) in the PSA screening era and to clarify the impact of race on this relationship. CEI was considered as a surrogate for the intensity of prostate cancer screening with PSA testing and subsequent biopsy as appropriate. Data from 163,982,733 person-years diagnosed with 544,058 prostate cancers (9 registries, 9% of US population) were examined. Strong inverse linear relationships were noted between CEI and prostate cancer mortality, and 317,356 prostate cancer deaths were avoided. Eight regions of the US demonstrated prostate cancer mortality reduction of 46.0-63.7%. On a per population basis, the lives of more black men than white men were saved in three of four registries with sufficient black populations for comparison. Factor(s) independent of CEI (potential effects of treatment advances) explained 14.6% of the mortality benefit (p-value = 0.3357) while there was a significant main effect of CEI (effect = -0.0064; CI: [-0.0088, -0.0040]; p-value < 0.0001). Therefore, there is a strong relationship between CEI and prostate cancer mortality reduction that was not related to factors independent of screening utilization. Minority populations have experienced large mortality reductions in the context of PSA mass utilization.

Quality rectal hydrogel placement allows for gel-enabled dose-escalated EBRT (GEDE-EBRT) without rectal interference in prostate cancer.

Multiple trials have shown that dose-escalation of radiation for prostate cancer provides a biochemical progression-free survival benefit (bPFS); however, rectal constraints are often limiting. In this dosimetric study, we hypothesized that a well-placed rectal hydrogel (RH) would permit improved dose-escalation and target coverage. We selected patients with good-quality RH and created plans with and without RH, prescribing 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles (PSV), and a peripheral zone (PZ) boost to 84 Gy, 98 Gy, or 112 Gy. We then compared plans with and without RH, prescribing a 112 Gy boost to 1 to 2 cm simulated dominant intraprostatic lesions (DIL). In the 18 plans created with a PZ boost, the PTV_boost D95% was higher in RH plans compared to non-RH plans (median 98.5 Gy vs 75.53 Gy, p < 0.01). The PSV planning target volume (PTV_PSV) D95% was also marginally higher with RH (71.87 Gy vs 71.04 Gy, p < 0.01). All rectal metrics were improved with RH. For the 32 plans created for simulated DILs treated to 112 Gy, the PTV_boost coverage (median D95% 112.48 Gy vs 102.63 Gy, p < 0.01) and rectal metrics were improved with RH. Four non-RH plans with at least a 4 mm rectal-PTV_boost gap achieved D95% > 98% of the prescription dose for the PTV_boost. Our study showed that placement of a high-quality RH allowed for GEDE-EBRT up to 112 Gy in 28 fractions (EQD2 160 Gy with α/ß = 2.5). This concept should be tested prospectively, particularly to assess for increases in nonrectal toxicities.

Rectal sparing in prostate radiotherapy with combination-brachytherapy and hydrogel spacer.

BACKGROUND: Though some techniques that facilitate rectal sparing such as brachytherapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have been examined in detail, technical aspects of hydrogel spacer (HS) have been studied less exhaustively. We examined HS quality metrics and approaches to placement for superior dosimetric outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single site retrospective review of radiation plans was conducted for patients who received combination-brachytherapy (CBT) with 90 Gy low-dose-rate implant followed by external beam radiotherapy (45 Gy/25 fractions) with operating room (OR) placed HS (2017-2021). A randomly selected set of patients that received CBT without HS over the same time period was used for comparison. Dosimetric outcomes included D1cc and D5% rectum. Dose gradients were quantified. Student's t-test was used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: Sixty patients (30 with and 30 without HS) who received CBT for prostate cancer were examined. Those with HS had lower mean D1cc [65.31 Gy (SD = 13.53)] and D5% [53.20 Gy (SD = 10.18)] compared to those treated without HS [91.67 Gy (SD = 8.31) and 75.00 Gy (SD = 8.45), respectively, p < 0.001]. Patients with superior HS (average thickness ≥1 cm; n = 12) had lower mean D1cc [58.49 Gy (SD = 13.25, p = 0.026)] and D5% [48.69 Gy (SD = 9.85, p = 0.049)] than those with thinner HS. When dose gradients were considered, HS spanning the interface between the prostate and perirectal tissues to a thickness ≥1 cm can reduce rectal maximum dose to 50-60 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Through effective use of CBT and HS, extreme rectal dose restriction is possible. The goal for HS placement should be thickness ≥1 cm from base to apex.

Prostate radiotherapy in the setting of bilateral hip prostheses: All commonly used photon-based radiation approaches are feasible.

The prevalence of hip prostheses is increasing. Prostate radiation delivery in the setting of hip prostheses is complicated by both imaging artifacts that interfere with volume delineation and dosimetric effects that must be addressed in the planning process. We hypothesized that with specialized planning, any photon-based definitive prostate radiotherapy approach may be utilized in patients with bilateral hip prostheses. Imaging data from sequential patients with prostate cancer and bilateral hip prostheses treated definitively with radiation were retrospectively reviewed. Bimodality imaging was used to define targets and organs at risk (OARs) along with specialized MRI sequences and/or orthopedic metal artifact reduction (OMAR) for MRI and CT artifact suppression, respectively. Multiple VMAT plans were generated for each set of patient images to include three fractionation schemes (conventional, hypofractionated, and SBRT), each with hip avoidance and with simulated normal hip. The ability to meet standard dose constraints was assessed for each plan type. Differences in target and OAR dosing between plans accounting for prosthetic hips via avoidance vs plans with simulated absence of prosthetic hip were also assessed. T-tests were used to compare dosimetric parameters. Ten patients with bilateral hip prostheses were identified, and 6 plans were created for each patient for a total of 60 radiation plans. Prosthetic hip avoidance did not result in failure to meet dose constraints for any patient. Hip avoidance resulted in minimal increases in high dose to the rectum and bladder (increases in mean V80%, V90%, and V95% ranged from 0.1% to 2.4%). Larger increases were seen at lower dose levels, with rectal V50% significantly increased in all three plan types with hip avoidance (conventional: 26.0% [standard deviation, SD 13.9] vs 16.9% [SD 10.2, p = 0.003]; hypofractionation: 26.4% [SD 13.3] vs 17.1% [SD 10.1, p = 0.002]; SBRT: 18.3% [SD 10.7] vs 10.5% [SD 6.9, p = 0.008]). Similarly, hip avoidance resulted in increases in bladder V50% to 31.7% (SD 16.8) vs 23.3% (SD 14.0, p = 0.001), 31.3% (SD 17.0) vs 23.3% (SD 13.8, p = 0.002), and 22.7% (SD 12.3) vs 16.5% (SD 12.6, p < 0.001) for conventional, hypofractionated, and SBRT plans, respectively. Hydrogel spacer resulted in reductions in rectal dose. For example, V70% for hip avoidance plans decreased with spacer presence to 8.3% (SD 6.7) vs 21.1% (SD 5.8, p = 0.021), 8.6% (SD 6.5) vs 21% (SD 5.7, p = 0.022), and 3.7% (SD 3.2) vs 15% (SD 8.2, p = 0.010) for conventional, hypofractionated, and SBRT plans, respectively. Any photon-based definitive prostate radiotherapy approach can be used with bimodality imaging for target and OAR definition and planning techniques to avoid dose attenuation effects of hip prostheses. Hydrogel spacer is a useful adjunct.

Efficacy and Incontinence Rates After Urethroplasty for Radiation-induced Urethral Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy of urethroplasty and rates of de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in the specific setting of radiation-induced urethral stenosis. METHODS: A systematic search of databases (PubMed and EMBASE) was performed between 1980-2019 (CRD42020144845). Inclusion criteria were: (1) prior pelvic radiotherapy; (2) surgical urethroplasty; (3) rates of successful treatment and/or SUI development and (4) total case number provided. The pooled summary of stenosis resolution rate and SUI were calculated using the random-effects model weighted by the inverse variance. Accessory analyses were performed by reconstructive technique and type of RT. RESULTS: Ninety-six studies were identified, of which 8 retrospective studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 256 patients. The proportion of cases treated with external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), or combination (EBRT+BT) were 52%, 33%, and 15%, respectively, of studies that specified modality. Most strictures involved the bulbomembranous region (n = 212; 83%). Sixty-one percent of cases (n = 157) entailed primary anastomosis, while the remainder underwent augmentation reconstruction (graft or flap). The mean follow-up time after urethroplasty varied from 10 to 50.5 months. The pooled stenosis resolution rate was 80% (95% CI: 74%-86%). There were no significant associations between stenosis resolution rate and reconstructive technique (rho=0.20, P = .74) or RT modality (rho=-0.31, P = .53). Fifty-three cases developed subsequent SUI, with a pooled complication rate of 19% (95% CI: 10%-31%). CONCLUSIONS: Urethroplasty after radiation-induced urethral stenosis is effective for 80% of cases, independent of prior RT modality or urethroplasty technique; however, 1 out of every 5 patients develops SUI post-procedure.

Progress in Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy has a proven critical role in achieving the modern standard of successful prostate cancer treatment, cure with quality of life (QoL) preservation. In the past decade, cure has been demonstrated in the most lethal form of prostate cancer treated with combined external beam and LDR brachytherapy. Additionally, QoL has moved from toxicity avoidance to preservation of function, with unprecedented sexual function preservation proven with intensive combination therapy. The technical advances that have made such outcomes possible have defined the full, dynamic complexity of the permanent prostate implant procedure, as well as effective solutions. Progress in LDR brachytherapy as it relates to prostate cancer biology, local control, toxicity reduction with function preservation, external beam integration, medical event prevention, patient selection, and comparative brachytherapy is reviewed. As in all brachytherapy procedures, the final clinical outcomes of cure, and QoL depend entirely on a foundation of verifiable technical excellence.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria for external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part II of II.

PURPOSE: To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

External beam radiation therapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy: Analysis of favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the tumor control and toxicity in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or EBRT plus low-dose-rate brachytherapy (combo-RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1995 and 2012, 579 men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with either EBRT (n = 388) or combo-RT (n = 191). Outcomes assessed included biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and cumulative incidence of genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal toxicity. Favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk subgroups were analyzed. RESULTS: Median followup was 7.5 years. Combo-RT group had improved 10-year bRFS compared with EBRT (91.7% vs. 75.4%, p = 0.014). On multivariable analysis, combo-RT (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.25, 0.92; p = 0.03) was associated with improved bRFS. Combo-RT had significantly improved bRFS compared with EBRT in the unfavorable subgroup (p = 0.02) but not in the favorable subgroup (p = 0.37). DMFS was similar within the entire cohort and by risk group. Combo-RT was associated with an increased rate in the 6-year cumulative incidence of Grade 3 GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 11.1; p = 0.026); however, 57% of Grade 3 GU toxicity was resolved, 29% had partial improvement, and only 1 patient had persistent Grade 3 GU toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk prostate cancer, combo-RT improved bRFS but not DMFS and increased Grade 3 GU toxicity. The bRFS benefit was limited to unfavorable intermediate-risk patients.

Vessel-sparing Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer to Preserve Erectile Function: A Single-arm Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction remains the most common side effect from radical treatment of localized prostate cancer. We hypothesized that the use of vessel-sparing radiotherapy, analogous to the functional anatomy approach of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP), would improve erectile function preservation while maintaining tumor control for men with localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine erectile function rates after vessel-sparing radiotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled in a phase 2 single-arm trial (NCT02958787) at a single academic center. INTERVENTION: Patients received vessel-sparing radiotherapy utilizing a planning MRI and MRI-angiogram to delineate and avoid the erectile vasculature. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Both physician- and patient-reported inventories were used to capture erectile function at baseline and at 2 and 5 yr after treatment. Validated model-based comparisons were performed to compare vessel-sparing results to nerve-sparing RP and conventional radiotherapy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: From 2001 to 2009, 135 men underwent vessel-sparing radiotherapy. After a planned interim analysis, the trial was stopped after meeting the primary endpoint. The median follow-up was 8.7 yr, with a ≥94% response rate to all inventories at each time point. At 5 yr, 88% of patients were sexually active with or without the use of sexual aids. The 2-yr erectile function rates were significantly improved with vessel-sparing radiotherapy (78%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 71-85%) compared to modeled rates for convention radiotherapy (42%, 95% CI 38-45%; p<0.001) or nerve-sparing prostatectomy (24%, 95% CI 22-27%; p<0.001). At 2 yr after treatment, 87% of baseline-potent men retained erections suitable for intercourse. The 5- and 10-yr rates of biochemical relapse-free survival were 99.3% and 89.9%, and at 5 yr the biochemical failures were limited to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk group. The single-arm design is a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Vessel-sparing radiotherapy appears to more effectively preserve erectile function when compared to historical series and model-predicted outcomes following nerve-sparing RP or conventional radiotherapy, with maintenance of tumor control. This approach warrants independent validation. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this interim analysis we looked at using a novel approach to spare critical erectile structures to preserve erectile function after prostate cancer radiotherapy. We found that almost 90% of patients at 5 yr after treatment remained sexually active, significantly higher than previous studies with surgery or radiotherapy.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Locally Advanced, High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To present the most updated American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on treatment of locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer METHODS:: The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: The panel summarized the most recent and relevant literature on the topic and voted on 4 clinical variants illustrating the appropriate management of locally advanced, high-risk cancer. Numerical rating and commentary reflecting the panel consensus was given for each treatment approach in each variant. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive local approaches including surgery followed by adjuvant XRT, beam combined with androgen deprivation therapy, and beam combined with brachytherapy have resulted in unpresented success in locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer. By combining most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this guideline can aid clinicians in the appropriate integration of available therapeutic modalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided functional anatomy approach to prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To provide an MRI based functional anatomy guide to prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a narrative review of periprostatic functional anatomy and the significance of this anatomy in prostate brachytherapy treatment planning. RESULTS: MRI has improved delineation of gross tumor and critical periprostatic structures that have been implicated in toxicity. Furthermore, MRI has revealed the significant anatomic variants and the dynamic nature of these structures that can have significant implications for treatment planning and dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: The MRI-based functional anatomy approach to prostate brachytherapy takes into account extent of disease, its relation to the patient's individual anatomy, and functional baseline to optimize the therapeutic ratio of prostate cancer treatment.

ACR appropriateness criteria: Permanent source brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To provide updated American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria for transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial permanent source brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ACR appropriateness criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: Permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) is a treatment option for appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer with low to very high risk disease. PPB monotherapy remains an appropriate and effective curative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer patients demonstrating excellent long-term cancer control and acceptable morbidity. PPB monotherapy can be considered for select intermediate-risk patients with multiparametric MRI useful in evaluation of such patients. High-risk patients treated with PPB should receive supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) along with androgen deprivation. Similarly, patients with involved pelvic lymph nodes may also be considered for such combined treatment but reported long-term outcomes are limited. Computed tomography-based postimplant dosimetry completed within 60 days of PPB is essential for quality assurance. PPB may be considered for treatment of local recurrence after EBRT but is associated with an increased risk of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Updated appropriateness criteria for patient evaluation, selection, treatment, and postimplant dosimetry are given. These criteria are intended to be advisory only with the final responsibility for patient care residing with the treating clinicians.

Advances in Prostate Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography for Staging and Radiotherapy Treatment Planning.

Conventional prostate cancer staging strategies have limited accuracy to define the location, grade, and burden of disease. Evaluations have historically relied upon prostate-specific antigen levels, digital rectal examinations, random systematic biopsies, computed tomography, pelvic lymphadenectomy, or 99mtechnetium methylene diphosphonate bone scans. Today, risk-stratification tools incorporate these data in a weighted format to guide management. However, the limitations and potential consequences of their uncertainties are well known. Inaccurate information may contribute to understaging and undertreatment, or overstaging and overtreatment. Meanwhile, advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), whole-body MRI, lymphotropic nanoparticle-enhanced MRI, and positron emission tomography are now available to improve the accuracy of risk stratification to facilitate more informed medical decisions. They also guide radiation oncologists to develop more accurate treatment plans. This review provides a primer to incorporate these advances into routine clinical workflow.

American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: Combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiation for high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To review outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined modality radiation therapy (CMRT) utilizing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with a brachytherapy boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The available literature for high-risk prostate cancer treated with combined modality radiation therapy was reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: At this time, the literature suggests that the majority of high-risk cancers are curable with multimodal treatment. Several large retrospective studies and three prospective randomized trials comparing CMRT to dose-escalated EBRT have demonstrated superior biochemical control with CMRT. Longer followup of the randomized trials will be required to determine if this will translate to a benefit in metastasis-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Although greater toxicity has been associated with CMRT compared to EBRT, recent studies suggest that technological advances that allow better definition and sparing of critical adjacent structures as well as increasing experience with brachytherapy have improved implant quality and the toxicity profile of brachytherapy. The role of androgen deprivation therapy is well established in the external beam literature for high-risk disease, but there is controversy regarding the applicability of these data in the setting of dose escalation. At this time, there is not sufficient evidence for the omission of androgen deprivation therapy with dose escalation in this population. Comparisons with surgery remain limited by differences in patient selection, but the evidence would suggest better disease control with CMRT compared to surgery alone. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a series of technological advances, modern combination series have demonstrated unparalleled rates of disease control in the high-risk population. Given the evidence from recent randomized trials, combination therapy may become the standard of care for high-risk cancers.

Vessel-sparing radiation and functional anatomy-based preservation for erectile function after prostate radiotherapy.

Treatment selection for men undergoing curative treatment for prostate cancer is often a challenging decision in view of the goal of maximising cure while maintaining quality of life. Previous quality-of-life comparisons suggest that specific outcomes are associated with type of treatment (surgery vs radiation); however, the functional anatomy approach, starting with nerve-sparing prostatectomy, assumes that quality-of-life outcomes are established by anatomic preservation. Emerging applications of the functional anatomy approach for prostate radiation will ultimately allow for individualised treatments that address the normal tissue variants visible on MRI. Such approaches will encompass all essential functions affected by treatment including genitourinary, rectal, and sexual functions. In this Review, we outline the current techniques in functional anatomy-based preservation related to sexual outcomes, and outline the capacity of vessel-sparing radiotherapy to preserve sexual function in 90% of patients at the 5 year follow-up while maintaining excellent cure rates.

Treatment Outcomes in Very High-risk Prostate Cancer Treated by Dose-escalated and Combined-Modality Radiation Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report treatment outcomes in patients with very high-risk prostate cancer (VHRPC) treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multi-institutional review on patients with VHRPC (those with at least 2 high-risk factors of prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8 to 10, or clinical T3 to T4 stage), treated with either dose-escalated external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or combined-modality radiotherapy (CMRT) consisting of pelvic irradiation and permanent interstitial brachytherapy. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients with VHRPC were identified. Of them, 69% of patients received EBRT and 31% received CMRT; 88% received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), 56% for ≥24 months (long-term ADT). The majority (69%) of patients were above 65 years old and were less likely to receive CMRT than younger patients (25% vs. 43%, P=0.006), although they did not differ from younger patients in tumor characteristics. Median follow-up was 61 months (interquartile range, 38 to 93 mo). Biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) for all patients at 8 years were (±SE): 50.6%±4.7%, 68.5%±4.3%, 78.7%±3.8%, respectively, and were similar for patients 65 years and below versus above 65 years old (BPFS: HR=0.88, P=0.56; DMFS: HR=0.79, P=0.40; CSS HR=0.99, P=0.99). After adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment-related covariates on multivariate analysis, CMRT was associated with improved BPFS (HR=0.44, P=0.012) with trends for DMFS (HR=0.52, P=0.10) and CSS (HR=0.55, P=0.21), whereas long-term ADT was independently associated with improved BPFS (HR=0.40, P=0.019), CSS (HR=0.20, P=0.002), and PCSM (HR=0.25, P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated EBRT or CMRT with long-term ADT resulted in favorable clinical outcomes for patients with VHRPC.

Patient-reported quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being used for prostate cancer, but concerns persist about toxicity compared to other radiotherapy options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional pooled cohort analysis of patient-reported quality of life (QOL) [EPIC-26] before and after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, or SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Data were analyzed by mean domain score, minimal clinically detectable difference (MCD) in domain score, and multivariate analyses to determine factors associated with domain scores at 2-years. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 803 patients at baseline and 645 at 2-years. Mean declines at 2-years across all patients were -1.9, -4.8, -4.9, and -13.3 points for urinary obstructive, urinary incontinence, bowel, and sexual symptom domains, respectively, corresponding to MCD in 29%, 20%, and 28% of patients. On multivariate analysis (vs. IMRT), brachytherapy had worse urinary irritation at 2-years (-6.8 points, p<0.0001) but no differences in other domains (p>0.15). QOL after SBRT was similar for urinary (p>0.5) and sexual domains (p=0.57), but was associated with better bowel score (+6.7 points, p<0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: QOL 2-years after brachytherapy, IMRT, or SBRT is very good and largely similar, with small differences in urinary and bowel QOL that are likely minimized by modern techniques.

ACR appropriateness Criteria® Postradical prostatectomy irradiation in prostate cancer.

The purpose of this article is to present an updated set of American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on the appropriate use of radiation therapy in postprostatectomy prostate cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. Recent and relevant literature reviewed by the panel led to establishment of criteria for appropriate use of radiation therapy in postprostatectomy prostate cancer. The discussion includes treatment technique, appropriate dose, field design, and the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Ratings and commentary of the panel on multiple treatment parameters were used to reach consensus. Patients with high-risk pathologic features benefit from postprostatectomy radiation therapy.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Definitive External-Beam Irradiation in stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To present the most updated American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on the appropriate use of external-beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer. METHODS: The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: The panel summarized the most recent and relevant literature on the topic and voted on 3 clinical variants illustrating the appropriate dose, techniques, and use of adjuvant hormone therapy with external-beam radiation for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk prostate cancer. Numerical rating and commentary reflecting the panel consensus was given for each treatment approach in each variant. CONCLUSIONS: External-beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this guideline can aid clinicians in the appropriate use of external-beam radiation for prostate cancer.