Identification of incidental brain tumors in prostate cancer patients via PSMA PET/CT.

PURPOSE: Brain metastases are rare in patients with prostate cancer and portend poor outcome. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET)/CT scans including the brain have identified incidental tumors. We sought to identify the incidental brain tumor detection rate of PSMA PET/CT performed at initial diagnosis or in the setting of biochemical recurrence. METHODS: An institutional database was queried for patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 or 18F-DCFPyL (18F-piflufolastat) PET/CT imaging at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center from 1/2018 to 12/2022. Imaging reports and clinical courses were reviewed to identify brain lesions and describe clinical and pathologic features. RESULTS: Two-thousand seven hundred and sixty-three patients underwent 3363 PSMA PET/CT scans in the absence of neurologic symptoms. Forty-four brain lesions were identified, including 33 PSMA-avid lesions: 10 intraparenchymal metastases (30%), 4 dural-based metastases (12%), 16 meningiomas (48%), 2 pituitary macroadenomas (6%), and 1 epidermal inclusion cyst (3%) (incidences of 0.36, 0.14, 0.58, 0.07, and 0.04%). The mean parenchymal metastasis diameter and mean SUVmax were 1.99 cm (95%CI:1.25-2.73) and 4.49 (95%CI:2.41-6.57), respectively. At the time of parenchymal brain metastasis detection, 57% of patients had no concurrent extracranial disease, 14% had localized prostate disease only, and 29% had extracranial metastases. Seven of 8 patients with parenchymal brain metastases remain alive at a median 8.8 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer brain metastases are rare, especially in the absence of widespread metastatic disease. Nevertheless, incidentally detected brain foci of PSMA uptake may represent previously unknown prostate cancer metastases, even in small lesions and in the absence of systemic disease.

Early outcomes of high-dose-rate brachytherapy combined with ultra-hypofractionated radiation in higher-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated outcomes associated with a high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with higher-risk localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 101 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk, unfavorable intermediate-risk, or favorable intermediate-risk with probable extra-prostatic extension treated with HDR brachytherapy (15 Gy x 1 fraction) followed by SBRT (5 Gy x 5 daily fractions to the prostate and/or seminal vesicles and/or pelvic lymph nodes). Androgen deprivation therapy was used in 55.4% of all patients (90% of high-risk, 33% of intermediate-risk). Toxicities according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 and International Prostate Symptom Scores were prospectively documented at each followup visit. Biochemical relapse was defined as PSA nadir +2ng/mL. RESULTS: The median follow-up time after SBRT was 24.1 months. No grade ≥3 toxicities were observed. The incidence of acute and late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities was both 0.99%. Acute and late grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were observed in 5.9% and 9.9%, respectively. Median time to a grade 2 GU toxicity was 6 months with a 14% 2-year actuarial rate of grade 2 GU toxicity. Median International Prostate Symptom Scores at 24 months was not significantly different than baseline (6 vs. 5; p = 0.24). Inclusion of pelvic lymph nodes and absence of a rectal spacer were significantly associated with more frequent grade ≥1 GU toxicity, but not grade ≥2 GU or gastrointestinal toxicity. The 2-year biochemical relapse free survival was 97%. CONCLUSIONS: HDR brachytherapy combined with SBRT was associated with a favorable early toxicity profile and encouraging cancer control outcomes.

Low dose rate brachytherapy for primary treatment of localized prostate cancer: A systemic review and executive summary of an evidence-based consensus statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to present evidence-based consensus recommendations for low dose rate (LDR) permanent seed brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Brachytherapy Society convened a task force for addressing key questions concerning ultrasound-based LDR prostate brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify prospective and multi-institutional retrospective studies involving LDR brachytherapy as monotherapy or boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy with or without adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Outcomes included disease control, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: LDR prostate brachytherapy monotherapy is an appropriate treatment option for low risk and favorable intermediate risk disease. LDR brachytherapy boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy is appropriate for unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Androgen deprivation therapy is recommended in unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Acceptable radionuclides for LDR brachytherapy include iodine-125, palladium-103, and cesium-131. Although brachytherapy monotherapy is associated with increased urinary obstructive and irritative symptoms that peak within the first 3 months after treatment, the median time toward symptom resolution is approximately 1 year for iodine-125 and 6 months for palladium-103. Such symptoms can be mitigated with short-term use of alpha blockers. Combination therapy is associated with worse urinary, bowel, and sexual symptoms than monotherapy. A prostate specific antigen <= 0.2 ng/mL at 4 years after LDR brachytherapy may be considered a biochemical definition of cure. CONCLUSIONS: LDR brachytherapy is a convenient, effective, and well-tolerated treatment for prostate cancer.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

11C-Choline PET/CT in Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Retrospective Analysis in a Large U.S. Patient Series.

Our purpose was to evaluate the performance of 11C-choline PET/CT in detecting biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) in a large non-European cohort (in the context of emerging evidence for prostate-specific membrane antigen PET in this setting) and to map patterns of PCa recurrence. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 11C-choline PET/CT scans from 287 patients who were enrolled in an imaging protocol based on rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (mean, 3.43 ng/mL; median, 0.94 ng/mL; range, 0.15-89.91 ng/mL) and suspected recurrent PCa. A total of 187 patients had undergone primary radical prostatectomy (RP) (79/187 had secondary radiotherapy), 30 had undergone primary radiotherapy, and 70 had a persistent PSA elevation after receiving initial treatment (69 after RP, 1 after radiotherapy). The level of suspicion for recurrence on 11C-choline PET/CT was scored (0, negative; 1, equivocal; 2, positive) by 2 readers. The correlation between 11C-choline PET/CT positivity and initial treatment, Gleason score, National Comprehensive Cancer Network stage, PSA level, PSA doubling time, PSA velocity, and time between initial treatment and PET imaging was evaluated. Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria were used to map 11C-choline recurrence patterns. Results: Considering scores 1 and 2 as positives, consensus between the 2 readers deemed 66% of the 11C-choline PET/CT scans as positive. When sorted by PSA level, 45% of patients with a PSA of less than 0.5 ng/mL, 56% of patients with a PSA of 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 70% of patients with a PSA of 1.0-1.99 ng/mL, and 90% of patients with a PSA of at least 2.0 ng/mL scored either 1 or 2 on 11C-choline PET/CT scans. When considering scores of 2 only, 11C-choline PET/CT positivity was 54% (28%, 46%, 62%, and 81%, respectively, for patients with PSA < 0.5 ng/mL, 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 1.0-1.99 ng/mL, and ≥ 2.0 ng/mL). In multivariate analysis, only PSA level was significantly associated with scan positivity. Pattern analysis showed that pelvic lymph nodes were the most common site of recurrence, and 28% of patients had 11C-choline-positive suspected recurrences outside the initial treatment field. Conclusion:11C-choline PET/CT can detect PCa recurrence even among patients with low PSA levels when interpretation accounts for the clinical context, providing a certain pretest probability. Until prostate-specific membrane antigen agents are fully approved for PCa, choline PET/CT may provide clinical utility.

Dose-Escalated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: 15-Year Outcomes Data.

PURPOSE: To report 15-year outcomes for dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer (PC) by evaluating biochemical relapse, distant metastases, cancer-specific survival, and long-term toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A database search was conducted for the first cohort of patients treated at this institution with 81 or 86.4 Gy between 1996 and 1998 using IMRT. Toxicity data were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Median follow-up was 11.6 years (range, 5-21 years). RESULTS: In the study, 301 patients were treated with 81 Gy (n = 269, 89%) or 86.4 Gy (n = 32, 11%). Patients were analyzed by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, with 29% low risk (LR), 49% intermediate risk (IR), and 22% high risk (HR). Late grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was seen in 3 patients (1.0%). No grade 4 GI toxicity events occurred. Median time from radiation therapy to late grade 3 GI toxicity was 2.9 years. One event occurred after 10 years. Late grade 3 and 4 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was seen in 6 (2.0%) and 1 (0.3%) patient, respectively. Median time to late grade 3+ GU toxicity was 5.5 years. Two events occurred after 10 years. In addition, 38 (12.6%) developed second primary malignancies (SPMs), 8 of which were in-field malignancies. Median time from radiation therapy to all SPM and in-field SPM was 10 years. The 15-year relapse-free survival was 76%, 65%, and 55% in the LR, IR, and HR groups, respectively. Distant metastases-free survival was 88%, 75%, and 63% for LR, IR, and HR patients, respectively. PC-specific mortality was 1.9%, 7.1%, and 12.2% for LR, IR, and HR patients. CONCLUSIONS: This report represents the longest follow-up data set to our knowledge of patients treated with high-dose IMRT for PC. Our findings indicate that it is well tolerated with 1.0% and 2.3% incidence of long-term grade 3+ GI and GU toxicity, respectively. The cohort had excellent PC-specific survival.

Unification of favourable intermediate-, unfavourable intermediate-, and very high-risk stratification criteria for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To improve on the existing risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective investigation including 2 248 patients undergoing dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at a single institution. We separated National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-risk prostate cancer into 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. Similarly, NCCN high-risk prostate cancer was stratified into 'standard' and 'very high-risk' groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Patients with unfavourable-intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer had significantly inferior prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, P < 0.001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P < 0.001), and overall survival (OS, P < 0.001) compared with patients with favourable-intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer. Similarly, patients with very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA-RFS (P < 0.001), DMFS (P < 0.001), and PCSM (P = 0.001) compared with patients with standard high-risk (SHR) prostate cancer. Moreover, patients with FIR and low-risk prostate cancer had similar outcomes, as did patients with UIR and SHR prostate cancer. RESULTS: Consequently, we propose the following risk-stratification system: Group 1, low risk and FIR; Group 2, UIR and SHR; and Group 3, VHR. These groups have markedly different outcomes, with 8-year distant metastasis rates of 3%, 9%, and 29% (P < 0.001) for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 8-year PCSM of 1%, 4%, and 13% (P < 0.001) after EBRT. This modified stratification system was significantly more accurate than the three-tiered NCCN system currently in clinical use for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: Modifying the NCCN risk-stratification system to group FIR with low-risk patients and UIR with SHR patients, results in modestly improved prediction of outcomes, potentially allowing better personalisation of therapeutic recommendations.

Statin use not associated with improved outcomes in patients treated with brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between statin use and prostate cancer outcomes in intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with brachytherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1998 and 2010, 754 men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- (n = 627) and high-risk (n = 127) prostate cancer were treated with prostate brachytherapy at our institution. Patients received either low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy or in combination with supplemental external beam radiotherapy. Two hundred eighty-five patients (37.8%) also received androgen-deprivation therapy. Two hundred seventy-three men (36.2%) were identified as taking statin medication before initiating radiation therapy. Prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival were compared using log-rank tests. Associations of patient and treatment characteristics with outcomes were analyzed with univariate and multivariate regression. The median followup was 48 months. RESULTS: The 8-year PSA-RFS for intermediate-risk, high-risk, and all patients was 92.2%, 64.1%, and 87.7%, respectively. The 8-year DMFS was 97.1%, 82.9%, and 94.9%, respectively. The 8-year overall survival for the entire cohort was 86.6%. There were no significant differences between statin users and nonusers when stratified by risk group, nor when analyzed as a full cohort. On multivariate analysis, Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 and >7 were significantly associated with worse PSA-RFS (p ≤ 0.003 and <0.001, respectively). Gleason score > 7 (p = 0.008) and the use of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (p = 0.03) was associated with worse DMFS. Statin use did not significantly impact PSA-RFS or DMFS. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment statin use is not associated with improved outcomes in intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy-based regimens for prostate cancer.

Dose to the bladder neck is the most important predictor for acute and late toxicity after low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: implications for establishing new dose constraints for treatment planning.

PURPOSE: To identify an anatomic structure predictive for acute (AUT) and late (LUT) urinary toxicity in patients with prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR) with or without external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From July 2002 to January 2013, 927 patients with prostate cancer (median age, 66 years) underwent LDR brachytherapy with Iodine 125 (n=753) or Palladium 103 (n=174) as definitive treatment (n=478) and as a boost (n=449) followed by supplemental EBRT (median dose, 50.4 Gy). Structures contoured on the computed tomographic (CT) scan on day 0 after implantation included prostate, urethra, bladder, and the bladder neck, defined as 5 mm around the urethra between the catheter balloon and the prostatic urethra. AUT and LUT were assessed with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version4. Clinical and dosimetric factors associated with AUT and LUT were analyzed with Cox regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis to calculate area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) (AUC). RESULTS: Grade ≥2 AUT and grade ≥2 LUT occurred in 520 patients (56%) and 154 patients (20%), respectively. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. Bladder neck D2cc retained a significant association with AUT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.04; P<.0001) and LUT (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P=.014) on multivariable analysis. In a comparison of bladder neck with the standard dosimetric variables by use of ROC analysis (prostate V100 >90%, D90 >100%, V150 >60%, urethra D20 >130%), bladder neck D2cc >50% was shown to have the strongest prognostic power for AUT (AUC, 0.697; P<.0001) and LUT (AUC, 0.620; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bladder neck D2cc >50% was the strongest predictor for grade ≥2 AUT and LUT in patients treated with LDR brachytherapy. These data support inclusion of bladder neck constraints into brachytherapy planning to decrease urinary toxicity.

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.

A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: The management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial, in part due to the heterogeneous nature of patients falling within this classification. OBJECTIVE: We propose a new risk stratification system for intermediate-risk PCa to aid in prognosis and therapeutic decision making. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 1992 and 2007, 1024 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk PCa and complete biopsy information were treated with definitive external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) utilizing doses ≥ 81 Gy. Unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa was defined as any intermediate-risk patient with a primary Gleason pattern of 4, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC) ≥ 50%, or multiple intermediate-risk factors (IRFs; cT2b-c, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10-20, or Gleason score 7). INTERVENTION: All patients received EBRT with ≥ 81 Gy with or without neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazards model for PSA recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS) and distant metastasis (DM). PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) was analyzed using a competing-risk method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 71 mo. Primary Gleason pattern 4 (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.26; p<0.0001), PPBC ≥ 50% (HR: 2.72; p=0.0007), and multiple IRFs (HR: 2.20; p=0.008) all were significant predictors of increased DM in multivariate analyses. Primary Gleason pattern 4 (HR: 5.23; p<0.0001) and PPBC ≥ 50% (HR: 4.08; p=0.002) but not multiple IRFs (HR: 1.74; p=0.21) independently predicted for increased PCSM. Patients with UIR disease had inferior PSA-RFS (HR: 2.37; p<0.0001), DM (HR: 4.34; p=0.0003), and PCSM (HR: 7.39; p=0.007) compared with those with favorable intermediate-risk disease, despite being more likely to receive neoadjuvant ADT. Short follow-up and retrospective study design are the primary limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate-risk PCa is a heterogeneous collection of diseases that can be separated into favorable and unfavorable subsets. These groups likely will benefit from divergent therapeutic paradigms.

Short-term androgen-deprivation therapy improves prostate cancer-specific mortality in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: We investigated the benefit of short-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) receiving dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The present retrospective study comprised 710 intermediate-risk PC patients receiving external beam radiation therapy with doses of ≥81 Gy at a single institution from 1992 to 2005, including 357 patients receiving neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT. Prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS) and distant metastasis (DM) were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. PC-specific mortality (PCSM) was assessed using competing-risks analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 7.9 years. Despite being more likely to have higher PSA levels, Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, multiple National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk factors, and older age (P≤.001 for all comparisons), patients receiving ADT had improved PSA-RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.598; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.435-0.841; P=.003), DM (HR, 0.424; 95% CI, 0.219-0.819; P=.011), and PCSM (HR, 0.380; 95% CI, 0.157-0.921; P=.032) on univariate analysis. Using multivariate analysis, ADT was an even stronger predictor of improved PSA-RFS (adjusted HR [AHR], 0.516; 95% CI, 0.360-0.739; P<.001), DM (AHR, 0.347; 95% CI, 0.176-0.685; P=.002), and PCSM (AHR, 0.297; 95% CI, 0.128-0.685; P=.004). Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 and ≥50% positive biopsy cores were other independent predictors of PCSM. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term ADT improves PSA-RFS, DM, and PCSM in patients with intermediate-risk PC undergoing dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy.

Long-term survival and toxicity in patients treated with high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To report long-term survival and toxicity outcomes with the use of high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to 86.4 Gy for patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between August 1997 and December 2008, 1002 patients were treated to a dose of 86.4 Gy using a 5-7 field IMRT technique. Patients were stratified by prognostic risk group based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification criteria. A total of 587 patients (59%) were treated with neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 5.5 years (range, 1-14 years). RESULTS: For low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, 7-year biochemical relapse-free survival outcomes were 98.8%, 85.6%, and 67.9%, respectively (P<.001), and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 99.4%, 94.1%, and 82.0% (P<.001), respectively. On multivariate analysis, T stage (P<.001), Gleason score (P<.001), and >50% of initial biopsy positive core (P=.001) were predictive for distant mestastases. No prostate cancer-related deaths were observed in the low-risk group. The 7-year prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) rates, using competing risk analysis for intermediate- and high-risk groups, were 3.3% and 8.1%, respectively (P=.008). On multivariate analysis, Gleason score (P=.004), percentage of biopsy core positivity (P=.003), and T-stage (P=.033) were predictive for PCSM. Actuarial 7-year grade 2 or higher late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were 4.4% and 21.1%, respectively. Late grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was experienced by 7 patients (0.7%) and 22 patients (2.2%), respectively. Of the 427 men with full potency at baseline, 317 men (74%) retained sexual function at time of last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest cohort of patients treated with high-dose radiation to 86.4 Gy, using IMRT for localized prostate cancer, with the longest follow-up to date. Our findings indicate that this treatment results in excellent clinical outcomes with acceptable toxicity.

Pretreatment endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging findings predict biochemical tumor control in prostate cancer patients treated with combination brachytherapy and external-beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of endorectal coil magenetic resonance imaging (eMRI) in predicting biochemical relapse in prostate cancer patients treated with combination brachytherapy and external-beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2000 and 2008, 279 men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer underwent eMRI of their prostate before receiving brachytherapy and supplemental intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Endorectal coil MRI was performed before treatment and retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists experienced in genitourinary MRI. Image-based variables, including tumor diameter, location, number of sextants involved, and the presence of extracapsular extension (ECE), were incorporated with other established clinical variables to predict biochemical control outcomes. The median follow-up was 49 months (range, 1-13 years). RESULTS: The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival for the cohort was 92%. Clinical findings predicting recurrence on univariate analysis included Gleason score (hazard ratio [HR] 3.6, p = 0.001), PSA (HR 1.04, p = 0.005), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group (HR 4.1, p = 0.002). Clinical T stage and the use of androgen deprivation therapy were not correlated with biochemical failure. Imaging findings on univariate analysis associated with relapse included ECE on MRI (HR 3.79, p = 0.003), tumor size (HR 2.58, p = 0.04), and T stage (HR 1.71, p = 0.004). On multivariate analysis incorporating both clinical and imaging findings, only ECE on MRI and Gleason score were independent predictors of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment eMRI findings predict for biochemical recurrence in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with combination brachytherapy and external-beam radiotherapy. Gleason score and the presence of ECE on MRI were the only significant predictors of biochemical relapse in this group of patients.

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.

Ten-year outcomes of high-dose, intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated long-term tumor control and toxicity outcomes after high-dose, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients who had clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Between April 1996 and January 1998, 170 patients received 81 gray (Gy) using a 5-field IMRT technique. Patients were classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined risk groups. Toxicity data were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 3.0. Freedom from biochemical relapse, distant metastases, and cause-specific survival outcomes were calculated. The median follow-up was 99 months. RESULTS: The 10-year actuarial prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival rates were 81% for the low-risk group, 78% for the intermediate-risk group, and 62% for the high-risk group; the 10-year distant metastases-free rates were 100%, 94%, and 90%, respectively; and the 10-year cause-specific mortality rates were 0%, 3%, and 14%, respectively. The 10-year likelihood of developing grade 2 and 3 late genitourinary toxicity was 11% and 5%, respectively; and the 10-year likelihood of developing grade 2 and 3 late gastrointestinal toxicity was 2% and 1%, respectively. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this report represents the longest followed cohort of patients who received high-dose radiation levels of 81 Gy using IMRT for localized prostate cancer. The findings indicated that high-dose IMRT is well tolerated and is associated with excellent long-term tumor-control outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Improved biochemical outcomes with statin use in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) and biochemical and survival outcomes after high-dose radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 1711 men with clinical stage T1-T3 prostate cancer were treated with conformal RT to a median dose of 81 Gy during 1995-2007. Preradiotherapy medication data were available for 1681 patients. Three hundred eighty-two patients (23%) were taking a statin medication at diagnosis and throughout RT. Nine hundred forty-seven patients received a short-course of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with RT. The median follow-up was 5.9 years. RESULTS: The 5- and 8-year PSA relapse-free survival (PRFS) rates for statin patients were 89% and 80%, compared with 83% and 74% for those not taking statins (p=0.002). In a multivariate analysis, statin use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, p=0.03), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low-risk group, and ADT use were associated with improved PRFS. Only high-risk patients in the statin group demonstrated improvement in PRFS (HR 0.52, p=0.02). Across all groups, statin use was not associated with improved distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (p=0.51). On multivariate analysis, lower NCCN risk group (p=0.01) and ADT use (p=0.005) predicted improved DMFS. CONCLUSIONS: Statin use during high-dose RT for clinically localized prostate cancer was associated with a significant improvement in PRFS in high-risk patients. These data suggest that statins have anticancer activity and possibly provide radiosensitization when used in conjunction with RT in the treatment of prostate cancer.

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.

Using QRRO survey data to assess compliance with quality indicators for breast and prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO) has embarked on a new national process survey to provide benchmark data that will allow radiation oncologists to assess the quality of care in their own practices by measuring quality indicators (QIs) and comparing individual with national practice. METHODS: Investigators at QRRO developed QIs on the basis of nationally recognized, evidence-based guidelines such as those of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, as well as additional emerging QIs for processes involving rapidly emerging technology. They specifically defined the QIs as clinical performance measures. Published results of the national survey database for patients treated in 1998 and 1999 were reviewed and additional analyses conducted to assess data adequacy to measure compliance with these clinical performance measures. RESULTS: Examples of workup QIs for breast cancer patients showed that 97% underwent diagnostic bilateral mammography, 96% underwent pathology reviews, 83% underwent the determination of estrogen receptor status, 81% underwent the determination of progesterone receptor status, and 31% underwent the determination of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Compliance with treatment QIs for field recommendations on the basis of nodal findings can be measured. Of patients with prostate cancer, 90% underwent digital rectal examinations, 99% underwent prostate-specific antigen tests, and 99% had their Gleason scores determined. Compliance with QIs on the basis of prognostic group can also be measured. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmarking utilization patterns provides a foundation for assessing the appropriateness of cancer care in the future. The QRRO database is a rich data source, and the new survey will provide contemporary benchmark data for these measures.

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.