Hyaluronic Acid Spacer for Hypofractionated Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer has been associated with greater acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxic effects compared with conventionally fractionated RT. Objective: To evaluate whether a hyaluronic acid rectal spacer could (1) improve rectal dosimetry and (2) affect acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects for hypofractionated RT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 2020 to June 2021 among 12 centers within the US, Australia, and Spain, with a 6-month follow-up. Adult patients with biopsy-proven, T1 to T2 prostate cancer with a Gleason score 7 or less and prostate-specific antigen level of 20 ng/mL or less (to convert to µg/L, multiply by 1) were blinded to the treatment arms. Of the 260 consented patients, 201 patients (77.3%) were randomized (2:1) to the presence or absence of the spacer. Patients were stratified by intended 4-month androgen deprivation therapy use and erectile quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the primary outcome, we hypothesized that more than 70% of patients in the spacer group would achieve a 25% or greater reduction in the rectal volume receiving 54 Gy (V54). For the secondary outcome, we hypothesized that the spacer group would have noninferior acute (within 3 months) grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects compared with the control group, with a margin of 10%. Results: Of the 201 randomized patients, 8 (4.0%) were Asian, 26 (12.9%) Black, 42 (20.9%) Hispanic or Latino, and 153 (76.1%) White; the mean (SD) age for the spacer group was 68.6 (7.2) years and 68.4 (7.3) years for the control group. For the primary outcome, 131 of 133 (98.5%; 95% CI, 94.7%-99.8%) patients in the spacer group experienced a 25% or greater reduction in rectum V54, which was greater than the minimally acceptable 70% (P < .001). The mean (SD) reduction was 85.0% (20.9%). For the secondary outcome, 4 of 136 patients (2.9%) in the spacer group and 9 of 65 patients (13.8%) in the control group experienced acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects (difference, -10.9%; 95% 1-sided upper confidence limit, -3.5; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The trial results suggest that rectal spacing with hyaluronic acid improved rectal dosimetry and reduced acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects. Rectal spacing should potentially be considered for minimizing the risk of acute grade 2 or higher toxic effects for hypofractionated RT. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04189913.

Outcomes after prostate brachytherapy are even better than predicted.

BACKGROUND: During the first 3 years after prostate cancer treatment with radiation therapy, benign prostate-specific antigen (PSA) bounces are difficult for clinicians to distinguish from a biochemical recurrence, which can result in unnecessary interventions and erroneous predictions of outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate a commonly used PSA failure definition in a multinational, multi-institutional study after monotherapy with prostate brachytherapy. METHODS: Participants were selected from 2919 men who underwent permanent prostate brachytherapy at the University Medical Center Utrecht, Princess Margaret Hospital, or Seattle Prostate Institute between 1998 and 2006. Inclusion required not having received androgen-deprivation therapy and having at least 30 months of follow-up. Failure was defined as any post-treatment use of hormone therapy, clinical relapse, or prostogram-defined biochemical (PSA) failure. Cases in which the nomogram predicted biochemical failure were evaluated at each institution to verify biochemical status over time and the actual clinical outcome at 5 years. RESULTS: The median follow-up for the 1816 patients was 5.2 years. Concordance between the prostogram-predicted and actual outcomes, as measured by the Harrell c statistic, was 0.655 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.536-0.774; P = .010) for the Princess Margaret group, 0.493 (95% CI, 0.259-0.648; P = .955) for the Seattle group, and 0.696 (95% CI, 0.648-0.744, P < .001) for the Utrecht group. The overall mean difference in biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years between actual outcomes and prostogram-defined outcomes was 9.2% (95% CI, 7.7%-10.6%). The total numbers of prostogram-defined and actual biochemical failures were 312 and 157, respectively (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: The widely used prostogram could not adequately distinguish a benign PSA bounce from a biochemical recurrence after prostate brachytherapy and could not be used to counsel patients about their predicted outcomes after treatment. The authors conclude that, to avoid unnecessary active interventions after treatment, clinicians should monitor PSA levels for at least 3 years and provide reassurance to patients that a PSA rise during this time is common and may not indicate a treatment failure.

177Lu-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Ligand After 223Ra Treatment in Men with Bone-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Real-World Clinical Experience.

We analyzed real-world clinical outcomes of sequential α-/ß-emitter therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: We assessed safety and overall survival in 26 patients who received 177Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (177Lu-PSMA) after 223Ra in the ongoing noninterventional REASSURE study (223Ra α-Emitter Agent in Nonintervention Safety Study in mCRPC Population for Long-Term Evaluation; NCT02141438). Results: Patients received 223Ra for a median of 6 injections and subsequent 177Lu-PSMA for a median of 3.5 mo (≥ the fourth therapy in 69%). The median time between 223Ra and 177Lu-PSMA treatment was 8 mo (range, 1-31 mo). Grade 3 hematologic events occurred in 9 of 26 patients (during or after 177Lu-PSMA treatment in 5/9 patients; 8/9 patients had also received docetaxel). Median overall survival was 28.0 mo from the 223Ra start and 13.2 mo from the 177Lu-PSMA start. Conclusion: Although the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions, these preliminary data, especially the 177Lu-PSMA treatment duration, suggest that the use of 177Lu-PSMA after 223Ra is feasible in this real-world setting.

The Oral Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist Relugolix as Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy to External Beam Radiotherapy in Patients with Localised Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Randomised, Open-label, Parallel-group Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option to prolong survival for patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was evaluated in this clinical setting in comparison with degarelix, an injectable GnRH antagonist. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of relugolix to achieve and maintain castration. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 2 open-label study was conducted in 103 intermediate-risk PCa patients undergoing primary EBRT and neoadjuvant/adjuvant ADT between June 2014 and December 2015. INTERVENTION: Patients randomly assigned (3:2) to 24-wk treatment with either daily oral relugolix or 4-wk subcutaneous depot degarelix (reference control). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the rate of effective castration (testosterone <1.73nmol/l) in relugolix patients between 4 and 24 wk of treatment. Secondary endpoints included rate of profound castration (testosterone <0.7nmol/l), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Aging Males' Symptoms scale, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (30-item EORTC core questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-C30] and 25-item EORTC prostate cancer module [EORTC QLQ-PR25]) questionnaires, and safety. No formal statistical comparisons with degarelix were planned. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Castration rates during treatment were 95% and 82% with relugolix and 89% and 68% with degarelix for 1.73 and 0.7nmol/l thresholds, respectively. Median time to castration in the relugolix arm was 4 d. During treatment, PSA levels and prostate volumes were reduced in both groups. Three months after discontinuing treatment, 52% of men on relugolix and 16% on degarelix experienced testosterone recovery (statistical significance of differences not tested). Mean and median QoL scores improved following treatment discontinuation. The most common adverse event was hot flush (relugolix 57%; degarelix 61%). Lack of blinding was a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Relugolix achieved testosterone suppression to castrate levels within days and maintained it over 24 wk with a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action. PATIENT SUMMARY: Oral once-daily relugolix may be a novel oral alternative to injectable androgen deprivation therapies.

Who Benefits From a Prostate Rectal Spacer? Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Previously a phase III trial of a hydrogel rectal spacer during prostate radiation therapy found decreased toxicity and a clinically significant improvement in bowel quality of life (QOL) at 3 years by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index. We performed a secondary analysis to identify men less likely to benefit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical and dosimetric data for the 222 patients enrolled on the SpaceOAR phase III trial were analyzed. The volume of rectum treated to 70 Gy (V70) and the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) rectal dose goals were used as surrogates for clinical benefit and plan quality. Mean bowel QOL was assessed at 15 and 36 months posttreatment and the likelihood of 1× (5 points) or 2× (10 points) minimally important difference changes were assessed. RESULTS: Rectal V70 was correlated with physician scored toxicity (P = .033) and was used as a surrogate for plan quality. There was no correlation between prostate volume and rectal V70 (r = 0.077). Rectal V70 pre- and post-hydrogel was 13% and 3% for the smallest prostates (<40 mL) and 12% and 2% for the largest (>80 mL). The relative reduction in rectal V70 of 78% did not vary by prespacer V70, but the absolute reduction was greater for a higher V70. All spacer plans met the 5 QUANTEC rectal dose constraints, although 92% of control plans met all constraints. At 3 years, those not meeting all QUANTEC goals had a 15.0-point (standard deviation 15.1) decline, control patients meeting QUANTEC goals had a 4.0-point (9.5) decline, and spacer had >0.5 (7.6; P < .01). Previous surgery was not correlated with QOL (P = .8). Across prognostic groups, including age, body mass index, previous surgery, target volume, or quality of radiation plans, there was no statistically significant heterogeneity in the relative benefit of spacer in decreasing the risk of 1× or 2× the minimally important difference declines. CONCLUSIONS: There was little heterogeneity in the likelihood of spacer reducing the risk of declines in bowel QOL across clinical and dosimetric variables. Even for the >95% of plans meeting QUANTEC rectal criteria, hydrogel spacer provided potentially meaningful benefits.

Permanent prostate brachytherapy preplanned technique: The modern Seattle method step-by-step and dosimetric outcomes.

PURPOSE: To describe, step-by-step, the current Seattle preplan technique, and report the dosimetric outcomes on 1,131 consecutively such treated prostate brachytherapy patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One thousand one hundred thirty one patients with prostate cancer were treated with iodine-125 ((125)I), palladium-103 ((103)Pd), or cesium-131 ((131)Cs) using a preplanned template-guided transrectal ultrasound-guided approach between January 2005 and August 2007. Day one computed tomography (CT) scans were taken for postimplantation dose-volume histogram evaluations. Postoperative prostate contours were drawn by one author (DN) on CT images taken on postoperative day one. RESULTS: The volume of prostate receiving 100% of prescription dose (V(100)) and percent dose to 90% of the prostate (%D(90)) were 95% and 106% for 558 monotherapy (125)I implants, 91% and 102% for 327 (103)Pd implants, and 97% and 111.5% for 13 (131)Cs implants, respectively. The median V(100) and percent D(90) were 91% and 101% for five boost (125)I implants, 92% and 104% for 228 boost (103)Pd implants. The median rectal volume receiving 100% of prescription dose (RV(100)) for (125)I, (103)Pd, and (131)Cs monotherapy implants were 0.3, 0.13, and 0.38cc, and for (125)I and (103)Pd boost implants were 0.16 and 0.13cc, respectively. No patient received an RV(100) of >0.92cc. CONCLUSIONS: Modern preplanned template and ultrasound-guided prostate brachytherapy can consistently result in excellent prostate dosimetry and rectal sparing.

Analysis of the Pro-Qura Database: rectal dose, implant quality, and brachytherapist's experience.

PURPOSE: This study analyzed rectal dosimetry outcomes of Pro-Qura proctored implants to assess the achievability of proposed rectal dose constraints in the setting of standardized pre- and postimplant dosimetry in community-based brachytherapy programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From August 2005 to July 2007, 713 postimplant CT scans were evaluated from 26 brachytherapists actively participating in Pro-Qura. Postimplant dosimetry was performed in a standardized fashion. The entirety of the rectal wall was contoured and evaluated for dose. Rectal dose was defined in terms of the volume of the rectum receiving 100% of the prescription dose (R(100)). Criteria for implant adequacy for both (103)Pd and (125)I included a prostate the percentage of the prostate volume covered by the prescription dose (V(100))>80%, a prostate the maximum dose covering 90% of the prostate volume (D(90)) of 90-140%, and an R(100)<1.0cm(3) for early (Day 0-7) dosimetry and <1.3cm(3) for late (Day 20-45) dosimetry. RESULTS: Mean prostatic volume was 35.1cm(3). The mean time from implant to CT scan was 29.9 days (range, 0-45 days). The respective mean overall prostate V(100) and D(90) were 89% and 101%, respectively, and remained consistent for sequence groups 1 through 6. Overall, the mean R(100) was 0.97+/-1.04cm(3). The R(100) was 1.15cm(3) for sequence Group 1 and with each subsequent sequence group decreased with a nadir of 0.83cm(3) in sequence Group 6 (p=0.22). Rectal dosimetry was deemed inadequate in 39% of Group 1 implants but only 22% in Group 6 (p=0.016). The reduced rectal doses did not impact prostate gland coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Using standardized dosimetry, R(100) improved with increasing brachytherapist's experience, reaching a plateau after approximately 20 patients.

Inter-institutional variation of implant activity for permanent prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Despite the existence of guidelines for permanent prostate brachytherapy, it is unclear whether there is interinstitutional consensus concerning the parameters of an ideal implant. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Three institutions with extensive prostate brachytherapy expertise submitted information regarding their implant philosophy and dosimetric constraints, as well as data on up to 50 radioiodine implants. Regression analyses were performed to reflect each institution's utilization of seeds and implanted activity. RESULTS: Despite almost identical implant philosophy, target volume, and dosimetric constraints, there were statistically significant interinstitutional differences in the number of seeds and total implant activity across the range of prostate volumes. For larger volumes, the variation in implanted activity was 25%; for smaller glands, it exceeded 40%. CONCLUSIONS: There remain wide variations in implanted activity between institutions espousing seemingly identical implant strategies, prescription, and dosimetry constraints. Brachytherapists should therefore be wary of using nomograms generated at other institutions.

Sexual quality of life following prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rectal/prostate spacer: Secondary analysis of a phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the results of a phase 3 trial evaluating a prostate/rectal hydrogel spacer during prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy, which resulted in decreased rectal dose and toxicity and less decline in bowel quality of life (QOL). A secondary analysis was performed to correlate penile bulb dose and sexual QOL. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sexual QOL was measured with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) by mean scores, the proportion of patients with a minimal clinically important difference (MID), and analyses of the different items composing the sexual domain. RESULTS: A total of 222 men enrolled with median follow-up of 37 months. Hydrogel reduced penile bulb mean dose, maximum dose, and percentage of penile bulb receiving 10 to 30 Gy (all P < .05) with mean dose indirectly correlated with erections sufficient for intercourse at 15 months (P = .03). Baseline EPIC was low (53 [standard deviation ± 24]) with no difference between arms (P > .1). A total of 41% (88/222) of men had adequate baseline sexual QOL (EPIC >60 (mean, 77 [± 8.3]). This subgroup at 3 years had better sexual function (P = .03) with a spacer with a smaller difference in sexual bother (P = .1), which resulted in a higher EPIC summary on the spacer arm (58 [±24.1] vs control 45 [± 24.4]) meeting threshold for MID without statistical significance (P = .07). There were statistically nonsignificant differences favoring spacer for the proportion of men with MID and 2× MID declines in sexual QOL with 53% vs 75% having an 11-point decline (P = .064) and 41% vs 60% with a 22-point decline (P = .11). At 3 years, more men potent at baseline and treated with spacer had "erections sufficient for intercourse" (control 37.5% vs spacer 66.7%, P = .046) as well as statistically higher scores on 7 of 13 items in the sexual domain (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a hydrogel spacer decreased dose to the penile bulb, which was associated with improved erectile function compared with the control group based on patient-reported sexual QOL.

15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical Stage T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle experience.

PURPOSE: Long-term biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) rates in patients with clinical Stages T1-T3 prostate cancer continue to be scrutinized after treatment with external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We report 15-year BRFS rates on 223 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer that were consecutively treated with I(125) or Pd (103) brachytherapy after 45-Gy neoadjuvant EBRT. Multivariate regression analysis was used to create a pretreatment clinical prognostic risk model using a modified American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (two consecutive serum prostate-specific antigen rises) as the outcome. Gleason scoring was performed by the pathologists at a community hospital. Time to biochemical failure was calculated and compared by using Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: Fifteen-year BRFS for the entire treatment group was 74%. BRFS using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering risk cohort analysis (95% confidence interval): low risk, 88%, intermediate risk 80%, and high risk 53%. Grouping by the risk classification described by D'Amico, the BRFS was: low risk 85.8%, intermediate risk 80.3%, and high risk 67.8% (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: I(125) or Pd(103) brachytherapy combined with supplemental EBRT results in excellent 15-year biochemical control. Different risk group classification schemes lead to different BRFS results in the high-risk group cohorts.

Initial analysis of Pro-Qura: a multi-institutional database of prostate brachytherapy dosimetry.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to analyze the Pro-Qura database in terms of patient implant sequence number for each institution to determine evidence for a dosimetric learning curve. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the Pro-Qura database, 2833 of a total of 4614 postplans from 57 brachytherapists were analyzed for evidence of a dosimetric learning curve. The median time between implant and postimplant CT scan was 30 days. I-125 was used in 2123 patients (1687 monotherapy and 536 boost) and Pd-103 in 710 patients (367 monotherapy and 343 boost). Preimplant prostate volume was 35.3 and 32.9 cm3 in the I-125 and Pd-103 cohorts, respectively. The mean I-125 seed activity was 0.32 and 0.26 mCi for monotherapy and boost, whereas for Pd-103 the mean seed activity was 1.59 and 1.27 mCi, respectively. Postimplant dosimetry was performed in a standardized fashion by overlaying the preimplant ultrasound and the postimplant CT scan. Criteria for implant adequacy included a D90 >90% and a V100 >80% for both isotopes. An adequate V150 was defined as <60% for I-125 and <75% for Pd-103. RESULTS: The mean V100 and D90 were 88.9% and 101.9% of prescription dose, respectively. When analyzed in terms of patient sequence number for each institution, the mean V100 for the first 10 patients was 87.4% and increased to 88.6% for patients 11-20 (p = 0.036). Similarly, the mean D90 for the first 10 patients was 98.9%, whereas for the second cohort of 10 patients the mean D90 increased to 102.2% (p = 0.001). In terms of mean V100 and D90, there was minimal further change for subsequent 10 patient institutional groupings of patient sequence numbers. For the first 10 cases, 27.2% were deemed "too cool" (V100 <80% and/or D90 <90%). Approximately 16% of all implants were deemed "too hot" (D90 >140% or V150 >60% for I-125 or >75% for Pd-103). CONCLUSIONS: Although a learning curve exists for prostate brachytherapy, high-quality brachytherapy is achievable in approximately 75-80% of patients treated at community centers.

Interstitial implant alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a survey of practice patterns in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study is aimed at understanding and defining the current patterns of care with respect to prostate brachytherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localized disease in the combined academic and community setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A nomogram-based survey was developed at the Seattle Prostate Institute defining the accepted criteria for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients were defined as having intermediate-risk prostate cancer if they met one of the following criteria: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/dL, Gleason score (GS) > or = 7, or cT2b or cT2c disease. Additional potential predictive factors including perineural invasion (PNI), GS 3+4 vs. 4+3, and high-volume disease were included. RESULTS: In the absence of PNI, all of those surveyed would perform monotherapy for intermediate-risk patients, GS 7 (3+4) or PSA 10-20, with cT1c and <30% cores +. Up to 80% would perform monotherapy for patients with cT1c, GS 7 (4+3), and <30% cores +. Eighty to 90% of physicians would perform an implant alone with cT2a and either a PSA of 10-20 or GS of 7 (3+4) and <30% cores +. Fifty to 60% of those surveyed stated that they would treat a patient with cT2b disease, GS 7 (3+4), or PSA 11-20, with less than two-thirds of the biopsy cores positive in the absence of PNI. CONCLUSIONS: This Patterns of Care (POC) study reveals that certain subsets of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients are considered appropriate candidates for an interstitial implant alone.

Continued Benefit to Rectal Separation for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Final Results of a Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy.

Second malignancies after prostate brachytherapy: incidence of bladder and colorectal cancers in patients with 15 years of potential follow-up.

PURPOSE: To report the incidence of second bladder and colorectal cancers after prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This review included 125 patients treated with I-125 brachytherapy alone, and 223 patients who received supplemental external beam radiation therapy. Median follow-up was 10.5 years. Patients were followed for the development of lower genitourinary and colorectal cancers. Second malignancies arising five years after radiation therapy were defined as being potentially associated with treatment; observed rates were then compared with age-matched expected rates according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. RESULTS: Five years out of treatment, there were 15 patients with a second solid tumor, including bladder cancer (n = 11), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and prostatic urethra cancer (n = 1). The incidence of second malignancy was no different in patients treated with brachytherapy alone (1.6%) vs. those receiving external beam radiotherapy (5.8%, p = 0.0623). There were more observed bladder cancers compared with those expected (relative risk, 2.34, 95% confidence interval 0.96-3.72; absolute excess risk 35 cancers per 10,000 patients). Relative risk did not significantly change over increasing follow-up intervals up to 20 years after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There may be an increased but small risk of developing a second malignancy after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. This outcome could be related to radiation carcinogenesis, but more vigilant screening and thorough workup as a result of radiation side effects and predisposing conditions (e.g., genetic and environmental factors) in many of the patients found to have second malignancies likely contributed to the higher number of observed malignancies than expected.

Hydrogel Spacer Application Technique, Patient Tolerance and Impact on Prostate Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: Results from a Prospective, Multicenter, Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the safety, tolerability and impact on therapy of an absorbable hydrogel perirectal spacer (SpaceOAR® system) designed to reduce the rectal radiation dose during prostate cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: A multicenter, pivotal, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 222 men with stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer treated to 79.2 Gy with image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy in 44 fractions. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive fiducial markers and perirectal spacer injection (spacer group) or fiducial markers alone (control group). Spacer placement, tolerability, perirectal space creation, impact on rectal dose and impact on quality of life were assessed. RESULTS: Most spacer procedures were conducted with the patient under general or local anesthesia. Procedures were rated easy or very easy in 98.7% of cases with a 99.3% success rate. Mild transient rectal events were noted in 10% of patients in the spacer group (eg pain, discomfort). Mean perirectal space was 12.6 mm after implant and 10.9 mm at 12.4 weeks with absorption at 12 months. A 25% or greater reduction in rectal V70 dose was produced in 97.3% of patients in the spacer group. The spacer group experienced a significant reduction in late rectal toxicity severity (p=0.044) as well as lower rates of decrease in bowel quality of life at 6, 12 and 15 months compared to the control group. There were no unanticipated adverse spacer effects or spacer related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrogel spacer application was straightforward and repeatable, resulting in consistent perirectal space creation and rectal dose reduction. Spacer application has the potential to improve prostate radiotherapy outcomes and enable advanced radiotherapy protocols.

Hydrogel Spacer Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Pivotal Trial: Dosimetric and Clinical Effects of Perirectal Spacer Application in Men Undergoing Prostate Image Guided Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Perirectal spacing, whereby biomaterials are placed between the prostate and rectum, shows promise in reducing rectal dose during prostate cancer radiation therapy. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled pivotal trial was performed to assess outcomes following absorbable spacer (SpaceOAR system) implantation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Overall, 222 patients with clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for treatment planning, followed with fiducial marker placement, and were randomized to receive spacer injection or no injection (control). Patients received postprocedure CT and MRI planning scans and underwent image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions). Spacer safety and impact on rectal irradiation, toxicity, and quality of life were assessed throughout 15 months. RESULTS: Spacer application was rated as "easy" or "very easy" 98.7% of the time, with a 99% hydrogel placement success rate. Perirectal spaces were 12.6 ± 3.9 mm and 1.6 ± 2.0 mm in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events, rectal perforations, serious bleeding, or infections within either group. Pre-to postspacer plans had a significant reduction in mean rectal V70 (12.4% to 3.3%, P<.0001). Overall acute rectal adverse event rates were similar between groups, with fewer spacer patients experiencing rectal pain (P=.02). A significant reduction in late (3-15 months) rectal toxicity severity in the spacer group was observed (P=.04), with a 2.0% and 7.0% late rectal toxicity incidence in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There was no late rectal toxicity greater than grade 1 in the spacer group. At 15 months 11.6% and 21.4% of spacer and control patients, respectively, experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life. MRI scans at 12 months verified spacer absorption. CONCLUSIONS: Spacer application was well tolerated. Increased perirectal space reduced rectal irradiation, reduced rectal toxicity severity, and decreased rates of patients experiencing declines in bowel quality of life. The spacer appears to be an effective tool, potentially enabling advanced prostate RT protocols.

Brachytherapy for carcinoma of the prostate: techniques, patient selection, and clinical outcomes.

Brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma has developed as either low dose rate permanent implants or high dose rate afterloading. Both approaches offer unsurpassed dose escalation and, particularly with permanent implants, the convenience of a single outpatient treatment. These therapies have now entered the mainstream of treatment options and are in the refinement phase of development. Techniques of implantation, treatment planning approaches, innovative fractionation schemes, and appropriate patient selection are the subject of current investigation. Treatment results are available beyond 10 years and appear equivalent or superior to other modalities. Although short term morbidity can be significant with brachytherapy, most current series report low long-term urinary and rectal complications. Meaningful quality of life studies and randomized cooperative group trials are now underway and should help define the role of brachytherapy in the near future.

Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival after external beam radiation and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: the Seattle experience.

PURPOSE: The role of external beam radiation therapy in addition to brachytherapy continues to be scrutinized for long term control of PSA levels after prostate cancer diagnosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We report 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) on 232 patients presenting with localized prostate cancer and consecutively treated with iodine(125) (I(125)) or palladium(103) (Pd(103)) brachytherapy and neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Multivariate regression analysis was used to create a pretreatment clinical prognostic risk model using a modified ASTRO consensus definition (two consecutive rises in serum PSA) as the outcome. Gleason scoring was performed by pathologists at a small community hospital. Derived risk categories are the following: low = PSA 10 ng/mL or Gleason Score >or=7 or stage >or=T2c (1 intermediate risk factor); and high = 2 or more intermediate risk factors. Time to PSA failure (local, distant, or biochemical) was calculated and compared using Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: Ten-year BRFS for the entire treatment group was 70%. Biochemical control rates by risk cohort analysis (95% confidence interval): low risk, 85% (83.3-90.7%); intermediate risk, 77% (73.0-84.5%); and high risk, 45% (45.4-57.2%). Using a risk grouping proposed by the Mt. Sinai group, the BRFS was: low risk, 84%; intermediate risk, 93%; and high risk, 57%. Grouping by the risk classification used by D'Amico, the BRFS was: low risk, 86%; intermediate risk, 90%; and high risk, 48%. CONCLUSIONS: I(125) or Pd(103) brachytherapy, as a boost combined with EBRT, continues to result in high rates of biochemical control at 10 years. Different risk group classification schemes lead to different BRFS results.

Prostate brachytherapy seed identification on post-implant TRUS images.

TRUS is a conceptually appealing alternative to CT-based dosimetry, offering the substantial practical advantage of being readily available intraoperatively. To test the feasibility and reliability of seed identification on post-implant TRUS using standard two-dimensional images, ten patients treated with I-125 or Pd-103 brachytherapy were studied. A set of transverse images (6 MHz) were taken immediately following completion of the implant procedure. Original thermal images were sent to four physicians and the sources were identified independently by placing marks on a cellophane overlay, with grids to match the axial TRUS images. The number and type of seed implanted were not revealed to the investigators. Instead, they were instructed to mark the positions of what they would consider, with reasonable certainty, to be seeds. The overlays were then manually compared for source identification and agreement between observers regarding each alleged source. The actual number of implanted seeds ranged from 44 to 108 (median: 60). In contrast, the mean number of seeds allegedly identified per patients ranged from 26 to 82 (median: 43). The average percent of the seeds allegedly identified per patient ranged from 51% to 83% (mean: 74%). The four physician investigators--KW, JS, BH, and GM--identified an alleged median of 90%, 44%, 63%, and 91% of the total seeds, respectively. There were five instances in which investigators alleged more seeds than were actually implanted. The consistency of seed identification among the investigators was evaluated by noting how many investigators identified each bright spot on the images. The percent of bright spots identified by all four investigators ranged from 8% to 33% (median: 20%). Despite considerable interest among some of our clinical and commercial colleagues in developing TRUS-based intraoperative post-implant dosimetry, the use of TRUS-based seed identification for post-implant dosimetry should be viewed with skepticism.