Favourable long-term outcomes with brachytherapy-based regimens in men ≤60 years with clinically localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term outcomes of men ≤60 years treated with brachytherapy (BT) for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 1655 patients treated with BT for clinically localized prostate cancer between January 1998 and May 2008 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 236 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- (n = 178) or intermediate-risk (n = 58) prostate cancer were ≤60 years old with a 3-year minimum follow-up, and represent the subjects of this report. Brachytherapy was given either as monotherapy (n = 169) or with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; n = 67). Forty-four patients (19%) received neoadjuvant cytoreductive hormone therapy. The 'nadir+2' definition was used for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence. Common Terminology Criteria for Acute Events (CTCAE) v 3.0 was used to grade genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Potency was defined as the ability to obtain an erection suitable for intercourse or an International Index of Erectile Function score ≥ 22. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression were used for statistical analysis. The median follow-up was 83 months. RESULTS: The 8-year PSA relapse-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific and overall survival rates for the entire cohort were 96, 99 and 96%, respectively. For patients with low-risk disease, the 8-year PSA RFS rate was 97% and for intermediate-risk patients it was 94% (P = 0.34). There was no difference in PSA RFS between BT alone and combined therapy (P = 0.17). Late grade ≥ 2 GU and GI toxicity was 14 and 3%, respectively. Of 150 patients potent before treatment, 76 (51%) were potent at last follow-up, with 50/76 (66%) using no medication. There was no significant difference in post-treatment potency between BT alone and BT with EBRT (P = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy provides patients aged ≤ 60 years with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer with excellent outcomes and has a low risk of significant long-term GU or GI morbidity. Erectile function is preserved in >50% of patients and the majority do not require erectile dysfunction medication.

Intraoperative 32P high-dose rate brachytherapy of the dura for recurrent primary and metastatic intracranial and spinal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of spinal and intracranial tumors with dural involvement is complicated by radiation tolerance of sensitive structures, especially in the setting of previous treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether intraoperative brachytherapy with short-range sources allows therapeutic dose delivery without damaging sensitive structures. METHODS: The median doses of previous treatment were 3000 cGy (range, 1800-7200 cGy) for 8 patients with primary/recurrent and 17 patients with metastatic spinal tumors and 5040 cGy (range, 1300-6040 cGy) for 5 patients with locally recurrent and 2 patients with metastatic intracranial tumors. Patients underwent gross total or maximal resection of the tumor and were then treated with an intraoperative brachytherapy plaque consisting of a flexible silicone film incorporating P. A dose of 1000 cGy was delivered to a depth of 1 mm; the percent depth dose was less than 1% at 4 mm from the prescription depth. Median postoperative radiation doses of 2700 cGy (range, 1800-3000 cGy) were delivered to 15 spinal tumor patients and 3000 cGy (range, 1800-3000 cGy) to 3 intracranial tumor patients. The median follow-up was 4.4 months (range, 2.6-23.3 months) for spinal tumor patients and 5.3 months (range, 0.7-16.2) for intracranial tumor patients. RESULTS: At 6-month follow-up, for all spinal tumor patients, local progression-free survival and overall survival rates were both 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.3%-94.3%); for all intracranial tumor patients, the local progression-free survival rate was 62.5% (95% CI: 23.8%-90.9%) and the overall survival rate was 66.7% (95% CI: 26.7%-92.9%). There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications secondary to radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Use of the P brachytherapy plaque is technically simple and not associated with increased risk of complications, even after multiple radiation courses. Local control rates were more than 80% in patients with proven radiation-resistant spinal disease.

Predicting biochemical tumor control after brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience.

PURPOSE: To identify predictors of biochemical tumor control and present an updated prognostic nomogram for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One thousand four hundred sixty-six patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with brachytherapy alone or along with supplemental conformal radiotherapy. Nine hundred one patients (61%) were treated with Iodine-125 ((125)I) monotherapy to a prescribed dose of 144Gy, and 41 (4.5%) were treated with Palladium-103 ((103)Pd) monotherapy to a prescribed dose of 125Gy. In patients with higher risk features (n=715), a combined modality approach was used, which comprised (125)I or (103)Pd seed implantation or Iridium-192 high-dose rate brachytherapy followed 1-2 months later by supplemental intensity-modulated image-guided radiotherapy to the prostate. RESULTS: The 5-year prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS) outcomes for favorable-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients were 98%, 95%, and 80%, respectively (p<0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified Gleason score (p<0.001) and pretreatment PSA (p=0.04) as predictors for PSA tumor control. In this cohort of patients, the use of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy did not influence biochemical tumor control outcomes. In the subset of patients treated with (125)I monotherapy, D(90)>140Gy compared with lower doses was associated with improved PSA-RFS. A nomogram predicting PSA-RFS was developed based on these predictors and had a concordance index of 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: Results with brachytherapy for all treatment groups were excellent. D(90) higher than 140Gy was associated with improved biochemical tumor control compared with lower doses. Androgen deprivation therapy use did not impact on tumor control outcomes in these patients.

Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT.

PURPOSE: We report on a retrospective comparison of biochemical outcomes using an ultra-high dose of conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. a lower dose of IMRT combined with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy to increase the biologically effective dose of IMRT. METHODS: Patients received IMRT of 86.4Gy (n=470) or HDR brachytherapy (21Gy in three fractions) followed by IMRT of 50.4Gy (n=160). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse was defined as PSA nadir+2. Median followup was 53 months for IMRT alone and 47 months for HDR. RESULTS: The 5-year actuarial PSA relapse-free survival (PRFS) for HDR plus IMRT vs. ultra-high-dose IMRT were 100% vs. 98%, 98% vs. 84%, and 93% vs. 71%, for National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- (p=0.71), intermediate- (p<0.001), and high-risk (p=0.23) groups, respectively. Treatment (p=0.0006), T stage (p<0.0001), Gleason score (p<0.0001), pretreatment PSA (p=0.0037), risk group (p<0.0001), and lack of androgen-deprivation therapy (p=0.0005) were significantly associated with improved PRFS on univariate analysis. HDR plus IMRT vs. ultra-high-dose IMRT (p=0.0012, hazard ratio [HR]=0.184); age (p=0.0222, HR=0.965); and risk group (p<0.0001, HR=2.683) were associated with improved PRFS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation of IMRT by adding HDR brachytherapy provided improved PRFS in the treatment of prostate cancer compared with ultra-high-dose IMRT, independent of risk group on multivariate analysis, with the most significant benefit for intermediate-risk patients.

Combined brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: reduced morbidity with an intraoperative brachytherapy planning technique and supplemental intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To report the acute and late treatment-related toxicities of combined permanent interstitial (125)I implantation delivered via real-time intraoperative planning and supplemental intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred twenty-seven patients were treated with a combined modality (CM) regimen consisting of (125)I implantation (110Gy) using a transrectal ultrasound-guided approach followed 2 months later by 50.4Gy of IMRT directed to the prostate and seminal vesicles. Late toxicity was scored according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity scale. The acute and late toxicities were compared to a contemporaneously treated cohort of 216 patients treated with (125)I alone to a prescribed dose of 144Gy. RESULTS: The incidence of Grade 2 acute rectal and urinary side effects was 1% and 10%, respectively, and 2 patients developed Grade 3 acute urinary toxicities. The 4-year incidence of late Grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was 9%, and no Grade 3 or 4 complications have been observed. The 4-year incidence of late Grade 2 gastrourinary toxicities was 15% and 1 patient developed a Grade 3 urethral stricture, which was corrected with urethral dilatation. The percentage of patients who experienced resolution of late rectal and urinary symptoms was 92% and 65%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that in addition to higher baseline International Prostate Symptom Score, those patients treated with implant alone compared to CM were more likely to experience Grade 2 acute urinary symptoms. Increased Grade 2 late rectal toxicities were noted for CM patients (9% vs. 1%; p=0.001) as well as a significant increase for late Grade 2 urinary toxicities (15% vs. 9%; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to dose constraints with combination real-time brachytherapy using real-time intraoperative planning and IMRT is associated with a low incidence of acute and late toxicities. Acute urinary side effects were significantly less common for CM patients compared to those treated with implantation alone. Late Grade 2 rectal and urinary toxicities were more common for patients treated with CM compared to implant alone.

Methodology for biologically-based treatment planning for combined low-dose-rate (permanent implant) and high-dose-rate (fractionated) treatment of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of permanent low-dose-rate interstitial implantation (LDR-BRT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) has been used in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. While a high radiation dose is delivered to the prostate in this setting, the actual biologic dose equivalence compared to monotherapy is not commonly invoked. We describe methodology for obtaining the fused dosimetry of this combined treatment and assigning a dose equivalence which in turn can be used to develop desired normal tissue and target constraints for biologic-based treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with this regimen initially receive an I-125 implant prescribed to 110 Gy followed, 2 months later, by 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions using intensity-modulated external beam radiotherapy. Ab initio methodology is described, using clinically derived biologic parameters (alpha, beta, potential doubling time for prostate cancer cells [T(pot)], cell loss factor), for calculating tumor control probability isoeffective doses for the combined LDR and conventional fraction EBRT treatment regimen. As no such formalism exists for assessing rectal or urethral toxicity, we make use of semi-empirical expressions proposed for describing urethral and rectal complication probabilities for specific treatment situations (LDR and fractionation, respectively) and utilize the notion of isoeffective dose to extend these results to combined LDR-EBRT regimens. RESULTS: The application to treatment planning of the methodology described in this study is illustrated with real-patient data. We evaluate the effect of changing LDR and EBRT prescription doses (in a manner that remains isoeffective with 81 Gy EBRT alone or with 144 Gy LDR monotherapy) on rectal and urethral complication probabilities, and suggest that it should be possible to improve the therapeutic ratio by exploiting joint LDR-EBRT planning. CONCLUSIONS: We describe new methodology for biologically based treatment planning for patients who receive combined low-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Using relevant mathematical tools, we demonstrate the feasibility of fusing dose distributions from each treatment for this combined regimen, which can then be expressed as isoeffective dose distributions. Based on this information, dose constraints for the rectum and urethra are described which could be used for planning such combination regimens.