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.

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.

A Pooled Toxicity Analysis of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only). RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Post-treatment Follow-up Prostate Cancer.

Diagnosis and management of prostate cancer post treatment is a large and complex problem, and care of these patients requires multidisciplinary involvement of imaging, medical, and surgical specialties. Imaging capabilities for evaluation of men with recurrent prostate cancer are rapidly evolving, particularly with PET and MRI. At the same time, treatment options and capabilities are expanding and improving. These recommendations separate patients into three broad categories: (1) patients status post-radical prostatectomy, (2) clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments, and (3) metastatic prostate. This article is a review of the current literature regarding imaging in these settings and the resulting recommendations for imaging. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Identification of Site-specific Recurrence Following Primary Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Using C-11 Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: A Nomogram for Predicting Extrapelvic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Management of recurrent prostate cancer (CaP) after radiotherapy (RT) is dependent on accurate localization of the site of recurrent disease. OBJECTIVE: To describe the anatomic patterns and clinical features associated with CaP recurrence following RT identified on advanced imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of 184 patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after RT for CaP. INTERVENTION: C-11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CholPET). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Recurrence patterns were classified as pelvic soft tissue only (as a surrogate for potentially salvageable disease) versus any extrapelvic disease, and clinical features were compared between patterns. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate a predictive nomogram for extrapelvic recurrence. Discrimination was assessed with a c-index. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Recurrence site was identified in 161 (87%) patients, with 95 (59%) sites histologically confirmed. Factors associated with the detection of recurrence included the difference between PSA nadir and PSA at CholPET (odds ratio: 1.30, p<0.01) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk classification (odds ratio: 10.83, p=0.03). One hundred (54.3%) patients recurred in the pelvic soft tissue only, while 61 (33%) had extrapelvic recurrence. Of 21 patients who underwent CholPET prior to meeting the Phoenix criteria of biochemical failure, 15 (71%) had recurrence identified on CholPET with 11 localized to the pelvis. On multivariable analysis, the difference between PSA nadir and PSA at CholPET, time from RT, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group were predictive of recurrence outside of the pelvis, and a nomogram was generated with a c-index of 0.79. CONCLUSIONS: CholPET identified the site of recurrence in 87% of patients with a rising PSA after RT; most commonly within the pelvis in potentially salvageable locations. A predictive nomogram was generated, and pending external validation, this may aid in assessing the risk of disease beyond the pelvis. These findings underscore the importance of advanced imaging when considering management strategies for patients with a rising PSA following primary RT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We identified anatomic patterns of recurrence in patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen after radiotherapy using C-11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Most recurrences were localized to the pelvis and we were able to generate a tool to aid in disease localization prior to evaluation with advanced imaging.

Customized dose prescription for permanent prostate brachytherapy: insights from a multicenter analysis of dosimetry outcomes.

PURPOSE: To investigate the biochemical control rate in patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy as a function of the biologically effective dose (BED) and risk group. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Six centers provided data on 3,928 permanent brachytherapy patients with postimplant dosimetry results. The mean prostate-specific antigen level was 8.9 ng/mL. (125)I was used in 2,293 (58%), (103)Pd in 1,635, and supplemental external beam radiotherapy in 882 (22.5%) patients. The patients were stratified into low- (n = 2,188), intermediate- (n = 1,188), and high- (n = 552) risk groups and into three BED groups of < 140 Gy (n = 524), 140-200 Gy (n = 2284), and >200 Gy (n = 1,115). Freedom from biochemical disease progression (biochemical freedom from failure [bFFF]) was determined using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology and Phoenix definitions and calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with factors compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: The 10-year prostate-specific antigen bFFF rate for the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology and Phoenix definitions was 79.2% and 70%, respectively. The corresponding bFFF rates for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups was 84.1% and 78.1%, 76.8% and 63.6%, and 64.4% and 58.2%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The corresponding bFFF rate for the three BED groups was 56.1% and 41.4%, 80% and 77.9%, and 91.1% and 82.9% (p < 0.0001). The corresponding bFFF rate for the low-risk patients by dose group was 69.8% and 49.8%, 86% and 85.2%, and 88.1% and 88.3% for the low-, intermediate, and high-dose group, respectively (p <0.0001). The corresponding bFFF rate for the intermediate-risk patients by dose group was 52.9% and 23.1%, 74.1% and 77.7%, and 94.3% and 88.8% for the low-, intermediate-, and high-dose group, respectively (p < 0.0001). The corresponding bFFF rate for high-risk patients by dose group was 19.2% and 41.7%, 61.8% and 53.2%, and 90% and 69.6% for the low-, intermediate-, and high-dose group, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that permanent brachytherapy dose prescriptions can be customized to risk status. In low-risk patients, achieving a BED of >or=140 Gy might be adequate for prostate-specific antigen control. However, high-risk disease might require a BED dose of >or=200 Gy.