DNA repair gene polymorphisms, tumor control, and treatment toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with permanent implant prostate brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy and brachytherapy are common treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa). However, very few studies evaluated the association of variations in DNA damage response genes and treatment outcomes and toxicity in brachytherapy-treated patients. PURPOSE: To evaluate the association of inherited germline variations in DNA repair-associated genes with tumor control and treatment toxicity in patients treated with low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDRB). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cohort consists of 475 I-125 LDRB patients with a median follow-up of 51 months after seed implantation. Patients were genotyped for 215 haplotype tagging single nucleotide variations (htSNPs) in 29 candidate genes of DNA damage response and repair pathways. Their association with biochemical recurrence (BCR) was assessed using Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Linear regressions and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) between early and late International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) with htSNPs were used to evaluate the association with urinary toxicity. RESULTS: After adjustment for the established risk factors, six htSNPs in five genes were found to be significantly associated with an altered risk of BCR, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj. ) ranging between 3.6 and 11.1 (P < .05). Compared to carriers of the ERCC3 rs4150499C allele, patients homozygous for the T allele (n = 22) had a significant higher risk of BCR with a HR of 11.13 (IC95 = 3.9-32.0; P < .0001; q < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve revealed a mean BCR-free survival time reduced from 213 ± 7 to 99 ± 12 months (log-rank P < .0001) for homozygous T carriers compare to noncarriers. For late IPSS (>6 months after treatment), htSNP rs6544990 from MSH2 showed a statistically significant b-coefficient of 1.85 ± 0.52 (P < .001; q < 0.1). Homozygous carriers of the MSH2 rs6544990C allele (n = 62) had a mean late IPSS 3.6 points higher than patients homozygous for the A allele (n = 132). This difference was significant when tested by ANCOVA using pretreatment IPSS as a covariate (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests an association of the intronic variants of the DNA nucleotide excision repair ERCC3 and DNA mismatch repair MSH2 genes with elevated risk of BCR and late urinary toxicity respectively after LDRB. Further validation is required before translational clinical advances.

Clinical Performance of the BD Onclarity Extended Genotyping Assay for the Management of Women Positive for Human Papillomavirus in Cervical Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Among women whose cervical specimens tested positive for high-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) via the Hybrid Capture 2 assay in the Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial (CCCaST), we assessed hrHPV genotype concordance between BD Onclarity HPV Assay and Roche's Linear Array, overall and stratified by hrHPV viral load. We also evaluated the performance of cytology, cytology combined with hrHPV genotyping (Onclarity assay) for HPV16/18 and non-HPV16/18 types, and hrHPV genotyping triage strategies for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 and worse (CIN2+/CIN3+). METHODS: Standard measures (expected agreement, agreement, and κ values) were used to compare Onclarity to the reference test, Linear Array. Twenty-four triage strategies were evaluated by calculating their sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection. RESULTS: Among 734 hrHPV+ samples tested, there was near perfect concordance irrespective of viral load between the Onclarity and Linear Array assays for the individual genotypes [human papillomaviruses (HPV) 16, 18, 31, 45, 51, 52] by Onclarity (κ values ranged from 0.92-0.98). Strategies with adequate specificity (>75%) and the highest sensitivities to detect CIN3+ among 617 women positive for hrHPV, were positivity to HPV16 and/or 31 (Sensitivity: 65.2%, Specificity: 76.9%) and HPV16 and/or 18 (Sensitivity: 58.7%, Specificity: 81.6%). CONCLUSIONS: While confirming the importance of HPV16, we found that HPV31 was comparable with HPV18 for the detection of CIN2/3+ in the triage of women positive for hrHPV. IMPACT: HPV31 may be an important genotype in the triage of women positive for hrHPV.

Image Guided Adaptive Endorectal Brachytherapy in the Nonoperative Management of Patients With Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Organ preservation or nonoperative management of rectal cancer is of growing interest. Image guided adaptive endorectal brachytherapy is a radiation dose escalation modality: we explored its role in elderly patients unfit for surgery and patients refusing surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this registry study, patients with rectal cancer who were ineligible for surgery received 40 Gy in 16 fractions of pelvic external beam radiation therapy. They subsequently received 3 weekly image guided adaptive brachytherapy boosts of 10 Gy to the residual tumor, for a total of 30 Gy in 3 fractions. Complete clinical response (cCR) and local control were the primary endpoints. RESULTS: 94 patients were included; the median age was 81.1 years. With a median follow-up of 1.9 years, the proportion of cCR was 86.2%, the tumor regrowth proportion was 13.6%, and the cumulative incidence of local relapse was 2.7% at 1 year and 16.8% at 2 years. When considering responders and nonresponders, the 2-year local control was 71.5%. The overall survival at 2 years was 63.6%. Acute rectal grade 1 to 2 toxicity included all patients: 12.8% of patients had late bleeding requiring iron replacement, blood transfusions, or argon plasma therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this registry study, evaluating radiation dose escalation for elderly medically unfit patients with unselected tumors, reveal that a high proportion of patients achieved cCR with a manageable toxicity profile. This technology will likely contribute to the challenging nonoperative management paradigm of rectal cancer.

Does Seed Migration Increase the Risk of Second Malignancies in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Iodine-125 Loose Seeds Brachytherapy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk of second malignancies after migration of seeds (MS) in prostate cancer patients treated with 125I loose seeds brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 2802 prostate cancer patients treated with 125I loose seeds brachytherapy in 3 Canadian centers were reviewed. After seeds implant, all patients underwent postimplant pelvic radiography and computed tomography scan for postimplant dosimetry. These images were used to assess whether seed migration occurred. The incidence of second malignancies was determined through the review of patient charts. The 7- and 10-year cumulative incidences of second malignancies and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Fine and Gray competing risk regression analysis was used to assess the factors associated with the development of second malignancies. RESULTS: Mean age and median follow-up were 63.5 years and 74 (range, 12-246) months, respectively. Migration of seeds occurred in 263 of 2802 patients (9.4%). Second malignancy occurred in 87 patients (3.1%) for the entire cohort and was not different between patients who experienced MS (9, 3.4%) and those who did not (78, 3.1%) (P = .755). The 7-year cumulative incidence rates of second malignancies were 2.95% (95% CI 1.20%-6.00%) (with MS) versus 2.82% (2.10%-3.70%) (without MS) (P = .756). The corresponding values at 10 years were 6.16% (2.20%-12.3%) versus 4.51% (3.20%-5.50%) (P = .570). Migration of seeds did not seem to be a significant predictive factor for second malignancies development (adjusted hazard ratio 1.27 [95% CI 0.63-2.55]; P = .510). In both models, only advanced age was significantly associated with second malignancies development. CONCLUSIONS: These results did not show an increased risk of second malignancies associated with MS after 125I loose seeds brachytherapy for prostate cancer patients. Longer follow-up and more events are required to better correlate MS and second malignancies.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer treatment: Different combinations of hypofractionated regimens and clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of our high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost experience in localized prostate cancer treated with different combinations of radiation doses and fractionation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 1999 and 2011, 832 patients were treated with different regimens of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and HDR-BT. These regimens were converted into three biologically effective dose (BED) groups. The biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), reported with the phoenix definition and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >0.2ng/ml at 5-year, genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The 5-, 10-year BFFS for the entire cohort were 94.6% and 92.5%, for overall survival (OS) 96.1% and 80.3% and for prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) 99.5% and 97.8%. The percentage of patients with a 5-year PSA level <0.2ng/ml was 68.6%, 78.7% and 86.7% in the BED group of <250, 250-260 and >260Gy (p=0.005) while the 5-year BFFS rates according to phoenix definition were 97.3%, 94.3% and 94.9% for BED group <250, 250-260 and >260Gy (p=0.453). On multivariate logistic regression, patients in the BED>260Gy group were significantly more likely to remain free from 5-year PSA values ≥0.2ng/mL compared with those in the BED<250Gy group (OR: 0.350, p=0.011). Grade≥3 acute GU toxicity was reported in 2 patients (4.7%) for BED>260Gy while grade≥3 late GU toxicity was reported in 6 (1.7%) and 9 (4.9%) patients for 250-260Gy and >260Gy BED groups. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in BED with the hypofractionated regimens correlates with an improvement in biochemical control with of urinary toxicity. This increase in urinary toxicity is small and clinically acceptable.

Intermittent vs Continuous Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Androgen deprivation is the standard therapy for patients with advanced or recurrent prostate cancer. However, this treatment causes adverse effects, alters quality of life, and may lead to castration-resistant disease. Intermittent androgen deprivation has been studied as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and tolerability of intermittent vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Biosis, National Technical Information Service, OpenSIGLE, and Google Scholar from inception of each database through March 2014. References from published guidelines, reviews, and other relevant articles were also considered. STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized clinical trials comparing intermittent vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with the inverse variance method and risk ratios with the Mantel-Haenszel method, using random effect models. A noninferiority analysis was conducted for overall survival with a margin of 1.15 for the upper boundary of the HR. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were overall survival and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival, progression-free survival, time to castration resistance, skeletal-related events, and adverse effects. RESULTS: From 10 510 references, we included 22 articles from 15 trials (6856 patients) published between 2000 and 2013. All but 1 study had an unclear or high risk of bias. We observed no significant difference between intermittent and continuous therapy for overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; 8 trials, 5352 patients), cancer-specific survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.19; 5 trials, 3613 patients), and progression-free survival (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; 4 trials, 1774 patients). There was minimal difference in patients' self-reported quality of life between the 2 interventions. Most trials observed an improvement in physical and sexual functioning with intermittent therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Intermittent androgen deprivation was not inferior to continuous therapy with respect to the overall survival. Some quality-of-life criteria seemed improved with intermittent therapy. Intermittent androgen deprivation can be considered as an alternative option in patients with recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer.