PSA outcomes and late toxicity of single-fraction HDR brachytherapy and LDR brachytherapy as monotherapy in localized prostate cancer: A phase 2 randomized pilot study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the PSA outcomes and the late patient's reported health related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity after single-fraction High-Dose-Rate brachytherapy (HDRB) and Low-Dose-Rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 3 centres were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB or 19 Gy single-fraction HDRB. Biochemical outcomes were evaluated using the Phoenix definition, PSA nadir and absolute PSA value <0.4 ng/mL. Toxicities and HRQOL were recorded at 24 and 36 months. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were randomized, 15 in the LDRB arm and 16 patients in the HDRB arm. After a median follow-up of 45(36-53) months, 3 patients in the HDRB arm experienced biochemical failure (p = 0.092). Nineteen Gy single-fraction HDRB was associated with significantly higher PSA nadir compared to LDRB (1.02 ± 0.66vs 0.25 ± 0.39, p < 0.0001). Moreover, a significantly larger proportion of patients in the LDRB group had a PSA <0.4 ng/mL (13/15 vs 2/16, p < 0.0001). For late Genito-Urinary, Gastro-Intestinal, and sexual toxicities at 24 and 36 months, no significant differences were found between the 2 arms. As for HRQOL, the IPSS and EPIC-26 urinary irritative score were significantly better for patients treated with HDRB over the first 36 months post-treatment (p = 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively), reflecting superior HRQOL. CONCLUSION: HDRB resulted in superior HRQOL in the irritative urinary domain compared to LDRB. PSA nadir was significantly lower in the LDRB group and a higher proportion of patients in the LDRB group reached PSA <0.4 ng/mL.

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0321: A Phase II Trial of Combined High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: To report the long-term outcome of patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy from a prospective multi-institutional trial conducted by NRG Oncology/RTOG. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with clinically localized (T1c-T3b) prostate cancer without prior history of transurethral resection of prostate or hip prosthesis were eligible for this study. All patients were treated with a combination of 45 Gy in 25 fractions from external beam radiation therapy and one HDR implant delivering 19 Gy in 2 fractions. Adverse events (AE) were collected using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. Cumulative incidence was used to estimate time to severe late gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical failure, disease-specific mortality, local failure, and distant failure. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients were enrolled from July 2004 to May 2006. AE data was available for 115 patients. Patients were National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate to very high risk. The median age was 68, T1c-T2c 91%, T3a-T3b 9%, PSA ≤10 70%, PSA >10 to ≤20 30%, GS 6 10%, GS 7 72%, and GS 8 to 10 18%. Forty-three percent of patients received hormonal therapy. At a median follow-up time of 10 years, there were 6 (5%) patients with grade 3 GI and GU treatment-related AEs, and no late grade 4 to 5 GI and GU AEs. At 5 and 10 years, the rate of late grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary AEs was 4% and 5%, respectively. Five- and 10-year overall survival rates were 95% and 76%. Biochemical failure rates per Phoenix definition at 5 and 10 years were 14% and 23%. The 10-year rate of disease-specific mortality was 6%. At 5 and 10 years, the rates of distant failure were 4% and 8%, respectively. The rates of local failure at 5 and 10 years were 2% at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: Combined modality treatment using HDR prostate brachytherapy leads to excellent long-term clinical outcomes in this prospective multi-institutional trial.

A Phase 2 Randomized Pilot Study Comparing High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) versus low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for localized prostate cancer in a multi-institutional phase 2 randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB to 144 Gy or single-fraction Iridium-192 HDRB to 19 Gy. HRQOL and urinary toxicity were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 scoring and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Independent samples t test and mixed effects modeling were performed for continuous variables. Time to IPSS resolution, defined as return to its baseline score ±5 points, was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimator curves with the log-rank test. A multiple-comparison adjusted P value of ≤.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: LDRB and HDRB were performed in 15 and 16 patients, respectively, for a total of 31 patients. At 3 months, patients treated with LDRB had a higher IPSS score (mean, 15.5 vs 6.0, respectively; P = .003) and lower EPIC urinary irritative score (mean, 69.2 vs 85.3, respectively; P = .037) compared with those who received HDRB. On repeated measures at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, the IPSS (P = .003) and EPIC urinary irritative scores (P = .019) were significantly better in the HDR arm, translating into a lower urinary toxicity profile. There were no significant differences in the EPIC urinary incontinence, sexual, or bowel habit scores between the 2 groups at any measured time point. Time to IPSS resolution was significantly shorter in the HDRB group (mean, 2.0 months) compared with the LDRB group (mean, 6.0 months; P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: HDRB monotherapy is a promising modality associated with a lower urinary toxicity profile and higher HRQOL in the first 12 months compared with LDRB.

External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms and comparison of existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to perform a direct comparison of several existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer in terms of their ability to predict for biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Two large databases were used and an external validation of two recently developed nomograms on an independent cohort was also performed in this analysis. METHODS: Patients who were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer were selected from the multi-institutional Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification (ProCaRS) database (n=7974) and the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) validation database (n=2266). The primary outcome was BFFS using the Phoenix definition. Concordance index (C-index) reported from Cox proportional hazards regression using 10-fold cross validation and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to predict BFFS. RESULTS: C-index identified Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score and ProCaRS as superior to the historical GUROC and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk-stratification systems. CAPRA modeled as five and three categories were superior to GUROC and NCCN only for the CHUM database. C-indices for CAPRA score, ProCaRS, GUROC, and NCCN were 0.72, 0.72, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively, for the ProCaRS database, and 0.66, 0.63, 0.57, and 0.60, respectively, for the CHUM database. However, many of these comparisons did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful difference. DCA identified minimal differences across the different risk-stratification systems, with no system emerging with optimal net benefit. External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms yielded favourable calibrations of R2=0.778 (low-dose rate [LDR]-brachytherapy) and R2=0.868 (EBRT). CONCLUSIONS: This study externally validated two ProCaRS nomograms for BFFS that may help clinicians in treatment selection and outcome prediction. A direct comparison between existing risk-stratification tools demonstrated minimal clinically significant differences in discriminative ability between the systems, favouring the CAPRA and ProCaRS systems. The incorporation of novel prognostic variables, such as genomic markers, is needed.

A comparative study of radical prostatectomy and permanent seed brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the outcomes between radical prostatectomy (RP) and permanent seed prostate brachytherapy (PB) in patients with low- and low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer from a single tertiary care centre. METHODS: Patients were selected from our institute's internal database based on preoperative selection criteria from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (2015) for low- and intermediate-risk patients. No patient had received any neo-adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. The endpoint was biochemical recurrence (BCR) or any salvage treatment for both RP and PB at 48 ± 4 months after treatment. The biochemical relapse threshold was set at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.5 ng/mL for PB and two PSA values of ≥0.2 ng/mL for RP. Patients from both treatment groups were compared using non-parametric tests. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine an association of treatment and pretreatment factors with a BCR at 48 months. RESULTS: A total of 575 patients were included in this study; 254 were treated with RP and 321 with PB. BCR was not different between both groups (p=0.84, Chi-square test), and occurred in 21.2% of patients treated with RP and in 20.6% with PB. Based on univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, younger age, higher percentage of positive biopsies, and initial PSA were predictive of BCR. Treatment modality was not predictive in either univariate (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.44; p=0.84) or multivariate (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.89-2.30; p=0.14) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Using closely related cutoff values for BCR, both RP and PB did not have significantly different outcomes at four years post-treatment. A longer followup may be necessary to detect a difference between treatments.

Effect of statins and anticoagulants on prostate cancer aggressiveness.

PURPOSE: Statins and anticoagulants (ACs) have both been associated with a less-aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) and a better outcome after treatment of localized PCa. The results of these studies might have been confounded because patients might often take both medications. We examined their respective influence on PCa aggressiveness at initial diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 381 patients treated with either external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy for low-risk (n = 152), intermediate-risk (n = 142), or high-risk (n = 87) localized PCa. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate an association between these drug classes and prostate cancer aggressiveness. We tested whether the concomitant use of statins and ACs had a different effect than that of either AC or statin use alone. RESULTS: Of the 381 patients, 172 (45.1%) were taking statins and 141 (37.0%) ACs; 105 patients (27.6%) used both. On univariate analysis, the statin and AC users were associated with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (p = .017) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group (p = .0022). On multivariate analysis, statin use was associated with a PSA level <10 ng/mL (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-6.8; p = .012) and a PSA level >20 ng/mL (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.83; p = .03). The use of ACs was associated with a PSA level >20 ng/mL (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.59, p = .02). CONCLUSION: Both AC and statins have an effect on PCa aggressiveness, with statins having a more stringent relationship with the PSA level, highlighting the importance of considering statin use in studies of PCa aggressiveness.

Influence of abdominal adiposity, waist circumference, and body mass index on clinical and pathologic findings in patients treated with radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increased body mass index (BMI) has been associated with more aggressive prostate cancer (PC). The relation among abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), waist circumference (WC), and BMI was compared with clinical and pathologic findings in patients treated with radiotherapy for localized PC. METHODS: VAT, SAT, WC (all measured by planning abdominopelvic computed tomography scan) and BMI were compared with clinical and pathologic factors using univariate analyses. Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether obesity measures significantly predicted risk for secondary malignancies. RESULTS: Of 276 analyzed patients, 80 (29%) were obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) ). Median BMI at baseline was 27.6 kg/m(2) (interquartile range [IQR], 25.1-30.5 kg/m(2) ). Increased SAT and VAT were associated with a higher National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) PC risk group (P = .0001 and .008, respectively). Greater SAT was associated with a higher Gleason score (GS) (P = .030). Younger age at diagnosis was significantly correlated with higher SAT and BMI, whereas increased prostate size was found in patients with higher BMI, WC, SAT, and VAT. At a median follow-up of 42.3 months (IQR, 32.3-59.9 months), 15 secondary malignancies were observed. On multivariate analysis, VAT was a significant predictor for secondary cancers (adjusted hazards ratio, 1.014; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of greater abdominal adiposity were strongly associated with adverse pathologic features in patients with localized PC, including higher GS and NCCN PC risk groups. Moreover, VAT was found to be a strong risk factor for secondary malignancies.