Trimodal therapy with high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation combined with long-term androgen deprivation for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the outcomes of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in very-high-risk (VHR) versus high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa), as defined in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria. METHODS: Data from 338 consecutive HR or VHR PCa patients who had undergone this tri-modal therapy between 2005 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free, progression-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival (BCRFS/PFS/OS/CSS) rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Wilcoxon test. Cox regression models were used to evaluate candidate prognostic factors for survival. C­indexes were used to assess model discrimination. RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 84 months, 68 patients experienced BCR, 58 had disease progression including only 3 with local progression, 27 died of any cause, and 2 died from PCa. The 5­year BCRFS, PFS, OS, and CSS rates were 82.2% (HR 86.5%; VHR 70.0%), 90.0% (HR 94.3%; VHR 77.6%), 95.7% (HR, 97.1%; VHR, 91.8%), and 99.6% (HR, 100%; VHR, 98.0%), respectively. In multivariable analyses that adjusted for standard clinicopathologic features, the risk subclassification was associated both PFS and OS (p = 0.0003 and 0.001, respectively). Adding the risk subclassification improved the accuracy of models in predicting BCRFS, PFS, and OS. CONCLUSION: While the outcome of this trimodal approach appears favorable, VHR PCa patients had significantly worse oncological outcomes than those with HR PCa. The NCCN risk subclassification should be integrated into prognostic tools to guide risk stratification, treatment, and follow-up for unfavorable PCa patients receiving this trimodal therapy.

Prospective comparison of the efficacy of caudal versus periprostatic nerve block, both with intrarectal local anesthesia, during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostatic needle biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of caudal block (CB) versus periprostatic nerve block (PPNB), both with intrarectal local anesthesia (IRLA), in reducing pain during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostatic biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 532 patients: 266 patients received CB with IRLA and 266 patients PPNB with IRLA. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was applied to prospectively evaluate pain (1) at induction of anesthesia, (2) at insertion of the TRUS probe, (3) at needle penetration to the prostate, and (4) throughout the biopsy procedure. Pain scores were compared to evaluate differences between groups. The secondary endpoint of serious complication rate was also evaluated. As a subanalysis, the pain scores were compared in patients with high body mass index (BMI ≥25 kg/m²). RESULTS: Overall, the pain score in the PPNB group was significantly lower than in the CB group at induction of anesthesia (mean ± SD: 2.0 ± 1.9 vs 2.9 ± 2.1, p = .0001) but higher at insertion of the TRUS probe (2.7 ± 2.5 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, p = .009). The pain score did not differ significantly between groups at needle penetration or throughout the biopsy. Univariate analyses indicated no significant association between VAS scores and patient demographics. Overall rates of serious complications did not differ between the two groups (5.6% vs 5.3%, p = .85). In patients with high BMI, the pain score was significantly lower in the PPNB group than in the CB group throughout the procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 3.5 ± 2.5, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures were equally effective in reducing pain, and the incidence of serious complications was similar. PPNB with IRLA may be more applicable than CB with IRLA in obese patients.

Mid-term outcome of permanent prostate iodine-125 brachytherapy in Japanese patients.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze mid-term oncological outcomes of low-dose rate brachytherapy in Japanese patients. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2010, 604 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with low-dose rate brachytherapy at Jikei University Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Median follow up was 48 months. Of these patients, 260 (43%) were treated with neoadjuvant therapy, 45 (7.5%) with adjuvant hormonal therapy and 75 (12.4%) with supplemental external beam radiation therapy. Biochemical recurrence was defined as the prostate-specific antigen nadir plus 2 ng/mL. RESULTS: Of the 604 patients, 219 (36.2%) were low risk, 361 (59.8%) were intermediate risk and 24 (4.0%) had high-risk disease. The median biologically effective dose was 174.4 Gy2. At 8 years, biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 82.2%, 100% and 95.6%, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 8 years was 89.9%, 79.4% and 52.5%, for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Biochemical recurrence-free survival for the high-risk group was significantly lower than the low- and intermediate-risk groups (P < 0.001). Biochemical recurrence-free survival did not differ significantly by biologically effective dose stratification. In multivariate analysis, younger age (P = 0.045), higher prostate-specific antigen (P = 0.004), higher Gleason score (P = 0.006) and higher clinical T stage (P = 0.008) were significant covariates associated with biochemical recurrence. The addition of hormonal therapy or external beam radiation therapy was associated with significantly better outcomes than low-dose rate brachytherapy monotherapy (P = 0.0021 and 0.010). Just four patients experienced G3 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose rate brachytherapy results in excellent mid-term oncological outcomes and acceptable toxicity in Japanese patients. In our experience, biologically effective dose does not represent a significant predictor for biochemical recurrence.