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.

Long-Term Efficacy and Toxicity of Low-Dose-Rate ¹²5I Prostate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report long-term efficacy and toxicity for a single-institution cohort of patients treated with low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy permanent implant (PI) monotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1996 to 2007, 1989 patients with low-risk (61.3%), intermediate-risk (29.8%), high-intermediate-risk (4.5%), and high-risk prostate cancer (4.4%) were treated with PI and followed up prospectively in a registry. All patients were treated with (125)I monotherapy to 144 Gy. Late toxicity was coded retrospectively according to a modified Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0 scale. The rates of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were calculated. We identified factors associated with late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, bRFS, DMFS, OS, PCSM, and incontinence. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 67 years, and the median overall and prostate-specific antigen follow-up times were 6.8 years and 5.8 years, respectively. The overall 5-year rates for bRFS, DMFS, OS, and PCSM were 91.9%, 97.8%, 93.7%, and 0.71%, respectively. The 10-year rates were 81.5%, 91.5%, 76.1%, and 2.5%, respectively. The overall rates of late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity were 7.6% and 0.8%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, age and prostate length were significantly associated with increased risk of late grade ≥3 GU toxicity. The risk of incontinence was highly correlated with both pre-PI and post-PI transurethral resection of the prostate. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective treatment for low-risk and low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer and appears promising as a treatment for high-intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. Significant long-term toxicities are rare when brachytherapy is performed as monotherapy.

Outcomes after photoselective vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate in patients who develop prostatic obstruction after radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the need for repeat treatment or urinary diversion in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compared with photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) after brachytherapy or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). METHODS: The prostate cancer database of Cleveland Clinic includes 3600 patients who have undergone prostate brachytherapy and 2500 patients who have undergone EBRT. We cross-referenced these patients with the electronic medical record to identify patients who required PVP or TURP after radiation. The primary outcome was the need for any further intervention after PVP or TURP, including bladder neck incision, repeat TURP, or permanent supravesicular diversion. RESULTS: Sixty of the 3600 patients (1.7%) required prostate reduction surgery after brachytherapy. Of these 60 patients, 19 of 40 (47.5%) who underwent TURP required further intervention, and 10 of 20 patients (50%) who underwent PVP required subsequent intervention. Twenty-eight of the 2500 patients (1.1%) required prostate reduction surgery after EBRT. Of these 28 patients, 5 of 18 patients (27.8%) who underwent TURP required further intervention, and 5 of 10 patients (50%) who underwent PVP required subsequent intervention. Following either type of radiation there was not a significant difference in the need for further treatment based on the type of surgery (P >.999 for brachytherapy; P = .412 for EBRT). The median time between radiation and prostate reduction surgery is 20.2 months (range, 14.6-27.6) after brachytherapy and 53.3 months (range, 27.5-53.3) after EBRT (P = .0005). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that PVP and TURP are comparable in treating prostatic obstruction after brachytherapy or EBRT. However, obstruction after brachytherapy occurs earlier compared with after EBRT.

Definitive radiotherapy for early (T1-T2) glottic squamous cell carcinoma: a 20 year Cleveland Clinic experience.

PURPOSE: To report our 20 yr experience of definitive radiotherapy for early glottic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation records of 141 patients were retrospectively evaluated for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Cox proportional hazard models were used to perform univariate (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA). Cause specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were plotted using cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meir curves, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 91% patients that presented with impaired voice, 73% noted significant improvement. Chronic laryngeal edema and dysphagia were noted in 18% and 7%, respectively. The five year LC was 94% (T1a), 83% (T1b), 87% (T2a), 65% (T2b); the ten year LC was 89% (T1a), 83% (T1b), 87% (T2a), and 53% (T2b). The cumulative incidence of death due to larynx cancer at 10 yrs was 5.5%, respectively. On MVA, T-stage, heavy alcohol consumption during treatment, and used of weighted fields were predictive for poor outcome (p < 0.05). The five year CSS and OS was 95.9% and 76.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive radiotherapy provides excellent LC and CSS for early glottis carcinoma, with excellent voice preservation and minimal long term toxicity. Alternative management strategies should be pursued for T2b glottis carcinomas.

Redefining high-risk prostate cancer based on distant metastases and mortality after high-dose radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy.

PURPOSE: Modern outcomes of high-dose external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk (HR) prostate cancer are not well described. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 585 patients who met HR criteria by 2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, who were treated with EBRT consisting of ≥74 Gy from 1996 to 2008 at Cleveland Clinic, of whom 95% received ADT. We analyzed biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). RESULTS: The median EBRT dose was 78 Gy, and median ADT duration was 6 months. At 10 years, the bRFS was 50.2%, the DMFS was 71.6%, and the PCSM was 14.4%. On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of bRFS were biopsy Gleason score (bGS) of 8 to 10, stage T3, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration; predictors of DMFS were bGS of 8 to 10 and stage T3; the only predictor of PCSM was bGS of 8 to 10. The duration of ADT was not predictive of any endpoint. We identified an unfavorable high-risk (UHR) group of stage T1-T2 tumors consisting of bGS of 8 with PSA of >10 ng/ml or bGS of 9 to 10 with any PSA level; the remaining clinically localized cancers comprised the favorable high-risk (FHR) group. Comparing FHR, UHR, and stage T3 groups, the DMFS rates were 81.4%, 57.8%, and 59.1% (p < 0.0001), and the PCSM rates were 7.5%, 28.4%, and 20.6% at 10 years, respectively (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: A bGS of 8 to 10 is the strongest predictor of bRFS, DMFS, and PCSM after high-dose EBRT with ADT. The duration of ADT did not correlate with outcome. Future studies should account for the heterogeneity in HR prostate cancer.

Five year biochemical recurrence free survival for intermediate risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy or permanent seed implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated by retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), external beam radiation therapy (RT), or permanent seed implantation (PI). METHODS: Patients treated for intermediate-risk prostate cancer per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines from 1996 to 2005 were studied. Variables potentially affecting bRFS were examined using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Five-year bRFS rates were calculated by actuarial methods; bRFS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Nadir +2 definition of biochemical failure was used for RT and PI patients; a PSA ≥ 0.4 ng/mL was used for radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. Time to initiation of salvage therapy was compared for each treatment group using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Nine-hundred seventy-nine patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 65 months. Five years bRFS rate was 82.8% for all patients (89.5% PI, 85.7% RT, 79.9% RRP, and 60.2% LRP). Patients treated by LRP had significantly worse bRFS than RT (P < .0001), PI (P < .0001), or RRP patients (P = .0038). Treatment modality (P < .0001) and average number of PSA tests per year (P < .0001) were the only independent predictors of bRFS on multivariate analysis. Median time to initiation of salvage therapy from time of treatment was 28.6 months for all patients (26.1 RP, 21.0 LRP, 47.4 PI, 47.8 RT; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer choosing PI, RT, or RRP appear to have improved 5-year bRFS and delayed salvage therapy compared with LRP.

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.