An Updated Analysis of the Survival Endpoints of ASCENDE-RT.

PURPOSE: Using the primary endpoint of time to biochemical progression (TTP), Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (ASCENDE-RT) randomized National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer to low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-PB) or dose-escalated external beam boost (DE-EBRT). Randomization to the LDR-PB arm resulted in a 2-fold reduction in biochemical progression compared with the DE-EBRT group at a median follow-up of 6.5 years (P < .001). Herein, the primary endpoint and secondary survival endpoints of the ASCENDE-RT trial are updated at a 10-year median follow-up. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either the LDR-PB or the DE-EBRT arm (1:1). All patients received 1 year of androgen deprivation therapy and 46 Gy in 23 fractions of pelvic RT. Patients in the DE-EBRT arm received an additional 32 Gy in 16 fractions, and those in the LDR-PB arm received an 125I implant prescribed to a minimum peripheral dose of 115 Gy. Two hundred patients were randomized to the DE-EBRT arm and 198 to the LDR-PB arm. RESULTS: The 10-year Kaplan-Meier TTP estimate was 85% ± 5% for LDR-PB compared with 67% ± 7% for DE-EBRT (log rank P < .001). Ten-year time to distant metastasis (DM) was 88% ± 5% for the LDR-PB arm and 86% ± 6% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .56). There were 117 (29%) deaths. Ten-year overall survival (OS) estimates were 80% ± 6% for the LDR-PB arm and 75% ± 7% for the DE-EBRT arm (P = .51). There were 30 (8%) patients who died of prostate cancer: 12 (6%) in the LDR-PB arm, including 2 treatment-related deaths, and 18 (9%) in the DE-EBRT arm. CONCLUSIONS: Men randomized to the LDR-PB boost arm of the ASCENDE-RT trial continue to experience a large advantage in TTP compared with those randomized to the DE-EBRT arm. ASCENDE-RT was not powered to detect differences in its secondary survival endpoints (OS, DM, and time to prostate cancer-specific death) and none are apparent.

Gantry-Based 5-Fraction Elective Nodal Irradiation in Unfavorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From 2 Prospective Studies Comparing SABR Boost With MR Dose-Painted HDR Brachytherapy Boost.

PURPOSE: Guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario recommend brachytherapy boost for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. SABR is an emerging technique for prostate cancer, but its use in high-risk disease is limited. Efficacy, toxic effects, and quality of life (QoL) were compared in patients treated on 2 prospective protocols that used SABR boost or magnetic resonance-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost with 6 to 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In SATURN study (study 1), patients received 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 weekly fractions. In SPARE (study 2), patients received HDR-BT (15 Gy × 1) to the prostate and ≤22.5 Gy to the magnetic resonance imaging nodule, followed by 25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions to the pelvis. All patients received between 6 and 18 months of ADT. RESULTS: Thirty patients (7% unfavorable intermediate risk and 93% high risk, per National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] criteria) completed study 1, and 31 patients (3% favorable intermediate risk, 47% unfavorable intermediate risk, and 50% high risk) completed treatment as per study 2. The median follow-up times were 72 and 62 months, respectively. In study 2, 6 patients had biochemical failure, and all 6 developed metastatic disease. Actuarial 5-year biochemical failure was 0% for study 1 and 18.2% for study 2 (P = .005). There was no significant difference in the worst acute or late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Grade 3 late genitourinary toxicity was noted in 3% of the patients in study 2 (HDR-BT boost). There was either no significant difference or minimal clinically important change in QoL. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of 5-fraction pelvic radiation therapy and ADT, there did not appear to be a significant difference in toxicity or QoL between SABR and HDR-BT boost. Although efficacy favored the SABR boost cohort, this should be viewed in the context of limitations and biases associated with comparing 2 sequential phase 2 studies.

PSA outcomes and late toxicity of single-fraction HDR brachytherapy and LDR brachytherapy as monotherapy in localized prostate cancer: A phase 2 randomized pilot study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the PSA outcomes and the late patient's reported health related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity after single-fraction High-Dose-Rate brachytherapy (HDRB) and Low-Dose-Rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 3 centres were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB or 19 Gy single-fraction HDRB. Biochemical outcomes were evaluated using the Phoenix definition, PSA nadir and absolute PSA value <0.4 ng/mL. Toxicities and HRQOL were recorded at 24 and 36 months. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were randomized, 15 in the LDRB arm and 16 patients in the HDRB arm. After a median follow-up of 45(36-53) months, 3 patients in the HDRB arm experienced biochemical failure (p = 0.092). Nineteen Gy single-fraction HDRB was associated with significantly higher PSA nadir compared to LDRB (1.02 ± 0.66vs 0.25 ± 0.39, p < 0.0001). Moreover, a significantly larger proportion of patients in the LDRB group had a PSA <0.4 ng/mL (13/15 vs 2/16, p < 0.0001). For late Genito-Urinary, Gastro-Intestinal, and sexual toxicities at 24 and 36 months, no significant differences were found between the 2 arms. As for HRQOL, the IPSS and EPIC-26 urinary irritative score were significantly better for patients treated with HDRB over the first 36 months post-treatment (p = 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively), reflecting superior HRQOL. CONCLUSION: HDRB resulted in superior HRQOL in the irritative urinary domain compared to LDRB. PSA nadir was significantly lower in the LDRB group and a higher proportion of patients in the LDRB group reached PSA <0.4 ng/mL.

A Phase 2 Randomized Pilot Study Comparing High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) versus low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRB) for localized prostate cancer in a multi-institutional phase 2 randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer were randomized between monotherapy brachytherapy with either Iodine-125 LDRB to 144 Gy or single-fraction Iridium-192 HDRB to 19 Gy. HRQOL and urinary toxicity were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 scoring and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Independent samples t test and mixed effects modeling were performed for continuous variables. Time to IPSS resolution, defined as return to its baseline score ±5 points, was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimator curves with the log-rank test. A multiple-comparison adjusted P value of ≤.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: LDRB and HDRB were performed in 15 and 16 patients, respectively, for a total of 31 patients. At 3 months, patients treated with LDRB had a higher IPSS score (mean, 15.5 vs 6.0, respectively; P = .003) and lower EPIC urinary irritative score (mean, 69.2 vs 85.3, respectively; P = .037) compared with those who received HDRB. On repeated measures at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, the IPSS (P = .003) and EPIC urinary irritative scores (P = .019) were significantly better in the HDR arm, translating into a lower urinary toxicity profile. There were no significant differences in the EPIC urinary incontinence, sexual, or bowel habit scores between the 2 groups at any measured time point. Time to IPSS resolution was significantly shorter in the HDRB group (mean, 2.0 months) compared with the LDRB group (mean, 6.0 months; P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: HDRB monotherapy is a promising modality associated with a lower urinary toxicity profile and higher HRQOL in the first 12 months compared with LDRB.

Late toxicity and biochemical recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy combined with permanent-source prostate brachytherapy: analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study 0019.

BACKGROUND: The combination of external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy is used commonly to treat men with prostate cancer. In this analysis, the authors examined the rate of biochemical recurrence (BR) and late grade > or =3 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity after treatment with external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy in a multiinstitutional, cooperative group setting. METHODS: All eligible patients received external-beam radiotherapy (45 Gray [Gy] in 25 fractions) followed 2 to 6 weeks later by an interstitial implant using iodine-125 to deliver an additional 108 Gy. BR was defined in 2 ways: according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) Consensus Definition (ACD) and according to the Phoenix definition (PD) (prostate-specific antigen nadir +2 ng/mL). The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group(RTOG)/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late radiation morbidity scoring system was used to grade all toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were enrolled, and 130 were eligible for the current analysis. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 49 months (range, 20-60 months). The 48-month estimate of late grade > or =3 GU/GI toxicity was 15% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 8-21%), and the 48-month estimate of BR was 19% (95% CI, 12-26%) and 14% (95% CI, 8-20%) according to the ACD and PD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity observed in this multiinstitutional, cooperative group study was slightly higher than that reported in recent RTOG studies using brachytherapy alone or high-dose external-beam radiotherapy. The BR rate observed in this report was similar to that observed with high-dose external-beam radiotherapy alone in similar patients.

Comparative study of dosimetry between high-dose-rate and permanent prostate implant brachytherapies in patients with prostate adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the dose coverage, conformity, and homogeneity between high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and permanent prostate implant (PPI) in the treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January 2003 to August 2004, 54 patients (108 implants) underwent HDR brachytherapy of prostate cancer with iridium-192 stepping source. Of patients who underwent PPI brachytherapy with iodine-125, 72 patients were randomly selected for the purpose of dosimetric comparison. PPI preplan was done based on transrectal ultrasound study, and postplan was done using CT 1 month after implant. Dosimetric parameters of HDR were compared to that of PPI preplan and postplan. RESULTS: HDR brachytherapy had lower D90 (111.5% vs. 120.2%), lower V100 (97.2% vs. 99.6%), lower natural dose ratio (1.03 vs. 1.13), higher conformal index (0.69 vs. 0.62), and higher homogeneity index (0.63 vs. 0.52) than PPI preplan (all p < 0.0001). All the dosimetric parameters of PPI postplan including D90 (86.7%), V100 (82.0%), natural dose ratio (0.92), conformal index (0.53), and homogeneity index (0.42) were inferior to HDR brachytherapy (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: HDR brachytherapy of the prostate can provide better dose coverage, conformity, and homogeneity compared to PPI.