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.

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.

Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify Gleason score (GS) heterogeneity within multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsies and to determine impact on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk stratification. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed on men who underwent Artemis (MRI-transrectal-ultrasound fusion) targeted biopsy (TB) for suspected prostate cancer between 2012 and 2015. Intratarget heterogeneity was defined as a difference in GS between 2 cores within a single target in patients with ≥2 positive cores. Prostate specific antigen, maximum tumor diameter, apparent diffusion coefficient, MRI suspicion score, prostate volume, systematic biopsy (SB) GS, and T-stage were analyzed for correlation with heterogeneity. Changes in NCCN risk based on high versus low GS on TB, SB alone, and SB+TB were compared. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent TB of 73 suspected lesions. Seventy percent (51/73) had ≥2 positive cores, thus meeting inclusion criteria for heterogeneity analysis. Fifty-five percent (28/51) of qualifying targets showed GS heterogeneity. None of the evaluated factors showed a significant relationship with heterogeneity. NCCN low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 30%, 49%, and 21%, respectively, with SB alone. Adding low GS TB to SB resulted in 17%, 55%, 28% in each risk group, while using high GS+SB resulted in 4%, 54%, and 42%. Overall, the addition of TB resulted in higher NCCN risk groups in 38% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of multiparametric MRI-defined targets demonstrated GS heterogeneity. The addition of high GS from TB leads to risk inflation compared with using SB alone. Further research is needed on how to integrate these findings into current risk stratification models and clinical practice.

A Pooled Analysis of Biochemical Failure in Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer Following Definitive Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (HDR-B) Monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) treated with either stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-B) monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional analysis of 437 patients with intermediate-risk PC treated with SBRT (N=300) or HDR-B (N=137) was performed. Men who underwent SBRT were treated to 35 to 40 Gy in 4 to 5 fractions. A total of 95.6% who underwent HDR-B were treated to 42 Gy in 6 fractions. Baseline patient characteristics were compared using a T test for continuous variables and the Mantel-Haenszel χ metric or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to estimate 5-year actuarial BRFS. Multivariate analysis using a Cox proportional-hazards model was used to evaluate factors associated with biochemical failure. RESULTS: The mean age at diagnosis was 68.4 (SD±7.8) years. T-category was T1 in 63.6% and T2 in 36.4%. Mean initial prostate-specific antigen was 7.4 (SD±3.4) ng/mL. Biopsy Gleason score was ≤3+4 in 82.8% and 4+3 in 17.2%. At a median of 4.1 years of follow-up, the BRFS rate (Phoenix definition) was 96.3%, with no difference when stratifying by treatment modality or biologically equivalent dose (BED1.5). On multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio 1.08, P=0.04) and biopsy Gleason score (hazard ratio 2.48, P=0.03) were significant predictors of BRFS. CONCLUSIONS: With a median follow-up period of 4 years, SBRT and HDR-B monotherapy provide excellent BRFS in intermediate-risk PC. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine the ultimate efficacy of these hypofractionated approaches, but they appear promising relative to standard fractionation outcomes.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Outcomes using high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy monotherapy (without androgen deprivation therapy or external beam radiation therapy) for National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined intermediate-risk (IR) patients are limited. We report our long-term data using HDR monotherapy for this patient population. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One-hundred ninety IR prostate cancer patients were treated 1996-2013 with HDR monotherapy. Biochemical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure was per the Phoenix definition. Acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were graded according to Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events, version 4. Kaplan-Meier (KM) biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), cause-specific survival, and overall survival rates were calculated. Univariate analyses were performed to determine relationships with BPFS. The median patient age was 66 years (43-90), and the median initial PSA was 7.4 ng/mL. The Gleason score was ≤6 in 26%, 3 + 4 in 62%, and 4 + 3 in 12%. The median treatment BED1.5 was 254 Gy; 83% of patients were treated with a dose of 7.25 Gy × six fractions delivered in two separate implants. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 6.2 years, KM BPFS at 5/8 years was 97%/90%, cause-specific survival at 8 years was 100%, and overall survival at 5/8 years was 93%/88%. Late genitourinary toxicities were 36.3% Grade 1, 18.9% Grade 2, and 3.7% Grade 3. Late gastrointestinal toxicities were 6.3% Grade 1, 1.1% Grade 2, and no Grade ≥3. Of the patients with no sexual dysfunction before treatment, 68% maintained potency. Age, initial PSA, T stage, Gleason score, prostate volume, and percent positive cores did not correlate with BPFS. Stratifying by favorable vs. unfavorable IR groups did not affect BPFS. CONCLUSIONS: HDR brachytherapy monotherapy represents a safe and highly effective treatment for IR prostate cancer patients with long-term follow-up.

High-Dose-Rate Monotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Results.

PURPOSE: High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy was originally used with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to increase the dose to the prostate without injuring the bladder or rectum. Numerous studies have reported HDR brachytherapy is safe and effective. We adapted it for use without EBRT for cases not requiring lymph node treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We entered the patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment parameters into a prospective registry and serially added follow-up data for 448 men with low-risk (n=288) and intermediate-risk (n=160) prostate cancer treated from 1996 to 2009. Their median age was 64 years (range 42-90). The median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 6.0 ng/mL (range 0.2-18.2). The Gleason score was ≤6 in 76% and 7 in 24%. The median dose was 43.5 Gy in 6 fractions. The clinical and biochemical disease control and survival rates were calculated. Adverse events were graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 6.5 years (range 0.3-15.3). The actuarial 6- and 10-year PSA progression-free survival was 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.9%-99.4%) and 97.8% (95% CI 95.5%-98.9%). Overall survival at 10 years was 76.7% (95% CI 69.9%-82.2%). The local control, distant metastasis-free survival, and cause-specific survival were 99.7% (95% CI 97.9%-99.9%), 98.9% (95% CI 96.3%-99.7%), and 99.1% (95% CI 95.8%-99.8%). T stage, initial PSA level, Gleason score, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, patient age, and androgen deprivation therapy did not significantly correlate with disease control or survival. No late grade 3 to 4 rectal toxicities developed. Late grade 3 to 4 genitourinary toxicity occurred in 4.9% (grade 3 in 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: HDR monotherapy is a safe and highly effective treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Multiparametric MRI identifies and stratifies prostate cancer lesions: implications for targeting intraprostatic targets.

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of multiparametric (mp) MRI (mp-MRI) to identify, stratify, and localize biopsy-proven prostate cancer lesions in a risk-stratified patient population. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed 57 patients who had mp-MRI and core needle biopsy during diagnostic prostate cancer evaluation. The MRI sequences were scored for suspicion of cancer with a previously described system. Distributions of mp-MRI scores were compared across National Comprehensive Cancer Network prostate cancer risk groups. The mp-MRI-identified lesions were compared with the location of positive core needle biopsies to assess mp-MRI localization of true lesions. RESULTS: The mp-MRI scoring system identified lesions in 84% (48/57) of the patients, including 100% (12/12) in the high-risk group. Scores assigned to lesions in patients in intermediate- and high-risk groups were statistically higher than those in the low-risk group, with a relative risk of 6.72 (95% confidence interval: 2.32-19.51, p<0.001) of having an aggressive score assigned in high-risk patients compared with the low-risk patients. In comparing the localization data from core needle biopsy, 68% of the patients had an MRI-identified lesion in or within one adjacent sextant of the same prostate hemigland, including 85% of aggressive lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Use of mp-MRI at the time of diagnosis can identify intraprostatic lesions and assign suspicion for high-risk disease. These data show that high-risk patients are more likely to have suspicious imaging-identified lesions that correlate to the location of biopsy-proven prostate cancer. At this time, the use of mp-MRI to define focal targets represents a complementary tool to patient evaluation for focal therapy strategies.

American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy after hysterectomy.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for the use of adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy after hysterectomy and update previous American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) guidelines. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A panel of members of the ABS performed a literature review, supplemented their clinical experience, and formulated recommendations for adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy. RESULTS: The ABS endorses the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for indications for radiation therapy for patients with endometrial cancer and cervical cancer and the guidelines on quality assurance of the American Association on Physicists in Medicine. The ABS made specific recommendations for applicator selection, insertion techniques, target volume definition, dose fractionation, and specifications for postoperative adjuvant vaginal cuff therapy. The ABS recommends that applicator selection should be based on patient anatomy, target volume geometry, and physician judgment. The dose prescription point should be clearly specified. Suggested doses were tabulated for treatment with brachytherapy alone, and in combination with external beam radiation therapy, when applicable. A properly fitted brachytherapy applicator should be selected that conforms to the vaginal apex and achieves mucosal contact with optimal tumor and normal tissue dosimetry. Dose prescription points may be individually selected but doses should be reported at the vaginal surface and at 0.5-cm depth. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations are made for adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy. Practitioners and cooperative groups are encouraged to use these recommendations to formulate their treatment and dose reporting policies. These recommendations will permit meaningful comparisons of reports from different institutions and lead to better and more appropriate use of vaginal brachytherapy.