ACR appropriateness Criteria® Postradical prostatectomy irradiation in prostate cancer.

The purpose of this article is to present an updated set of American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on the appropriate use of radiation therapy in postprostatectomy prostate cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. Recent and relevant literature reviewed by the panel led to establishment of criteria for appropriate use of radiation therapy in postprostatectomy prostate cancer. The discussion includes treatment technique, appropriate dose, field design, and the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Ratings and commentary of the panel on multiple treatment parameters were used to reach consensus. Patients with high-risk pathologic features benefit from postprostatectomy radiation therapy.

Computational ECG mapping and respiratory gating to optimize stereotactic ablative radiotherapy workflow for refractory ventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) is an emerging therapy for refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, the current workflow is complicated, and the precision and safety in patients with significant cardiorespiratory motion and VT targets near the stomach may be suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that automated 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) mapping and respiratory-gated therapy may improve the ease and precision of SAbR planning and facilitate safe radiation delivery in patients with refractory VT. METHODS: Consecutive patients with refractory VT were studied at 2 hospitals. VT exit sites were localized using a 3-D computational ECG algorithm noninvasively and compared to available prior invasive mapping. Radiotherapy (25 Gy) was delivered at end-expiration when cardiac respiratory motion was ≥0.6 cm or targets were ≤2 cm from the stomach. RESULTS: In 6 patients (ejection fraction 29% ± 13%), 4.2 ± 2.3 VT morphologies per patient were mapped. Overall, 7 out of 7 computational ECG mappings (100%) colocalized to the identical cardiac segment when prior invasive electrophysiology study was available. Respiratory gating was associated with smaller planning target volumes compared to nongated volumes (71 ± 7 vs 153 ± 35 cc, P < .01). In 2 patients with inferior wall VT targets close to the stomach (6 mm proximity) or significant respiratory motion (22 mm excursion), no GI complications were observed at 9- and 12-month follow-up. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks decreased from 23 ± 12 shocks/patient to 0.67 ± 1.0 (P < .001) post-SAbR at 6.0 ± 4.9 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A workflow including computational ECG mapping and protocol-guided respiratory gating is feasible, is safe, and may improve the ease of SAbR planning. Studies to validate this workflow in larger populations are required.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Treatment of Node-Negative Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Definitive radiation therapy (RT), with or without concurrent chemotherapy, is an alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with localized, muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are either not surgical candidates or prefer organ preservation. We aim to synthesize an evidence-based guideline regarding the appropriate use of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses literature review using the PubMed and Embase databases. Based on the literature review, critical management topics were identified and reformulated into consensus questions. An expert panel was assembled to address key areas of both consensus and controversy using the modified Delphi framework. RESULTS: A total of 761 articles were screened, of which 61 were published between 1975 and 2019 and included for full review. There were 7 well-designed studies, 20 good quality studies, 28 quality studies with design limitations, and 6 references not suited as primary evidence. Adjuvant radiation therapy after cystectomy was not included owing to lack of high-quality data or clinical use. An expert panel consisting of 14 radiation oncologists, 1 medical oncologist, and 1 urologist was assembled. We identified 4 clinical variants of MIBC: surgically fit patients who wish to pursue organ preservation, patients surgically unfit for cystectomy, patients medically unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and borderline cystectomy candidates based on age with unilateral hydronephrosis and normal renal function. We identified key areas of controversy, including use of definitive radiation therapy for patients with negative prognostic factors, appropriate radiation therapy dose, fractionation, fields and technique when used, and chemotherapy sequencing and choice of agent. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited level-one evidence to guide appropriate treatment of MIBC. Studies vary significantly with regards to patient selection, chemotherapy use, and radiation therapy technique. A consensus guideline on the appropriateness of RT for MIBC may aid practicing oncologists in bridging the gap between data and clinical practice.

Relationship between prostate cancer mortality and number of unfavourable risk factors in men treated with definitive brachytherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the number of unfavourable pretreatment risk factors predicts cause-specific mortality in men treated with prostate brachytherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between April 1995 and March 2006, 739 patients were treated who had at least one of the following adverse risk factors: pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of >10 ng/mL, a Gleason score of > or =7, clinical stage > or =T2b, or a PSA velocity (PSAV) of >2 ng/mL/year. Supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was delivered to 464 (62.8%) men and 301 (40.7%) received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Of men with more than two risk factors, 87% received EBRT and 62% received ADT. RESULTS: The biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival for all patients were 95.0%, 97.9% and 70.0% at 12 years. Men with three or four risk factors had a prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) at 12 years of 5.3%, vs 1.7% for men with one or two risk factors (P= 0.006). When 'percentage of positive biopsy cores >50%' replaced PSAV as a risk factor, men with two or more risk factors had a PCSM of 8.9%, vs 1.0% for men with one or two risk factors (P= 0.001). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between the groups in either analysis. CONCLUSION: Multimodal brachytherapy results in high rates of bPFS and CSS, even for men with several unfavourable risk factors. Men with two or more unfavourable risk factors had a slightly greater risk of PCSM and no difference in all-cause mortality. The presence of three or four unfavourable intermediate-risk factors does not appear to clearly identify a group that requires further treatment intensification, although the percentage of positive cores might be more predictive than PSAV.

Impact of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Overall Mortality in Prostate Brachytherapy Patients With Low Pretreatment Testosterone Levels.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate brachytherapy patients impacts overall mortality (OM) in patients with lower pretreatment serum testosterone levels compared with those with normal or high baseline serum testosterone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2001 to May 2014, 1916 patients underwent brachytherapy and had a pretreatment serum testosterone. Baseline serum testosterone values were collected prospectively before initiation of therapy. Median follow-up was 7.2 years. In total, 26% of the patients received ADT, primarily men with higher risk disease. OM and prostate cancer-specific mortality were examined to determine whether men with lower baseline serum testosterone were at increased risk of mortality when ADT was used, compared with men with baseline normal or higher testosterone. RESULTS: Prostate cancer-specific mortality and OM at 10 years was 0.8% and 22.0%. Age, tobacco use, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and percent positive biopsies were the strongest predictors of OM. ADT use by itself was not associated with an increased risk of OM on multivariate analysis (P=0.695). However, ADT use in men with lower baseline testosterone was associated with a significantly higher risk of OM (P<0.01). ADT use in men with normal or higher baseline testosterone was not associated with an increased OM risk (P=0.924). CONCLUSIONS: Men with lower baseline testosterone may be at increased risk of premature death when ADT is utilized compared with men with baseline normal or higher testosterone. Further analysis of this potential risk factor is warranted to further identify subsets of men who may be at higher risk of long-term adverse sequelae from ADT.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria for external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part II of II.

PURPOSE: To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes 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) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

ACR appropriateness criteria: Permanent source brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To provide updated American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria for transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial permanent source brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ACR appropriateness criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: Permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) is a treatment option for appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer with low to very high risk disease. PPB monotherapy remains an appropriate and effective curative treatment for low-risk prostate cancer patients demonstrating excellent long-term cancer control and acceptable morbidity. PPB monotherapy can be considered for select intermediate-risk patients with multiparametric MRI useful in evaluation of such patients. High-risk patients treated with PPB should receive supplemental external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) along with androgen deprivation. Similarly, patients with involved pelvic lymph nodes may also be considered for such combined treatment but reported long-term outcomes are limited. Computed tomography-based postimplant dosimetry completed within 60 days of PPB is essential for quality assurance. PPB may be considered for treatment of local recurrence after EBRT but is associated with an increased risk of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Updated appropriateness criteria for patient evaluation, selection, treatment, and postimplant dosimetry are given. These criteria are intended to be advisory only with the final responsibility for patient care residing with the treating clinicians.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Locally Advanced, High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To present the most updated American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on treatment of locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer METHODS:: 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. RESULTS: The panel summarized the most recent and relevant literature on the topic and voted on 4 clinical variants illustrating the appropriate management of locally advanced, high-risk cancer. Numerical rating and commentary reflecting the panel consensus was given for each treatment approach in each variant. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive local approaches including surgery followed by adjuvant XRT, beam combined with androgen deprivation therapy, and beam combined with brachytherapy have resulted in unpresented success in locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer. By combining most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this guideline can aid clinicians in the appropriate integration of available therapeutic modalities.

Metformin is not associated with improved biochemical free survival or cause-specific survival in men with prostate cancer treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Several recent studies have suggested improved clinical outcomes in diabetic men with prostate cancer who also use metformin. We explore whether metformin use is associated with improved outcomes specifically in men undergoing prostate brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 2,298 consecutive patients underwent permanent interstitial brachytherapy by a single brachytherapist (GSM). The cohort included 2028 non-diabetic men, 144 men with diabetes who were not taking metformin, and 126 men with diabetes who were taking metformin. Median follow up was 8.3 years. Differences in biochemical free survival, cause specific survival, and overall survival between men taking metformin and those not taking metformin were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank tests. RESULTS: Fifteen year biochemical failure rate, cause specific mortality and overall mortality for non-diabetic men was 4.6%, 1.5%, 47.0%, respectively; for diabetic men taking metformin 4.8%, 2.0%, 37.2%; and for diabetic men not taking metformin was 2.8%, 0%, 72.7%, respectively. Metformin use was not predictive in multivariate analysis of biochemical failure or prostate cancer specific mortality. However, diabetic men not taking metformin had higher overall mortality than non-diabetic men. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin use was not associated with improved biochemical survival or cancer specific survival in this cohort of men treated with prostate brachytherapy.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy plays a potential curative role in the treatment of prostate cancer. An expert panel was convened to review the recent literature and reach a consensus on its appropriate clinical applications. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: A summary of HDR brachytherapy's clinical applications and recent literature review was completed. Three clinical variants were developed to address common HDR dose, fractionations, and indications for its use in definitive therapy for primary and local recurrent prostate cancer. The panel reached a consensus on the specific treatment approaches with numerical rating and commentary. CONCLUSIONS: In combining available medical literature and expert opinion, this manuscript may serve as an aid for other practitioners in the appropriate application of HDR brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Definitive External-Beam Irradiation in stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To present the most updated American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on the appropriate use of external-beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer. METHODS: The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: The panel summarized the most recent and relevant literature on the topic and voted on 3 clinical variants illustrating the appropriate dose, techniques, and use of adjuvant hormone therapy with external-beam radiation for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk prostate cancer. Numerical rating and commentary reflecting the panel consensus was given for each treatment approach in each variant. CONCLUSIONS: External-beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this guideline can aid clinicians in the appropriate use of external-beam radiation for prostate cancer.

Long-term outcomes of prostate cancer patients with Gleason pattern 5 treated with combined brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Recent reports have suggested relatively poor prognosis for prostate cancer patients with Gleason pattern 5 treated with dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (XRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We present the largest series of men with high-risk, Gleason pattern 5 prostate cancer treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy and XRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between April 1995 and December 2008, 329 consecutive patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk disease were treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Most received XRT and ADT. Median followup was 7.2 years. The cause of death was determined for each deceased patient. Multiple clinical, treatment, and dosimetric parameters were evaluated for impact on the evaluated survival parameters. RESULTS: At 10 years, biochemical progression-free survival, cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival for the group of high-risk patients as a whole was 91.1%, 95.5%, and 72.5%, respectively. There was no difference in biochemical progression-free survival between men with and without Gleason pattern 5 (89.7% vs. 91.8%; p=0.56). However, men with Gleason pattern 5 had lower prostate cancer CSS (90.3% vs. 98.1%; p=0.011). There was no difference in overall survival comparing men with and without Gleason pattern 5 disease (67.7% vs. 75.4%; p=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Men with high-risk, Gleason pattern 5 histology treated with brachytherapy and XRT have excellent long-term outcomes, which compare favorably to dose-escalated XRT/ADT series without brachytherapy. Nonetheless, Gleason pattern 5 results in lower CSS than high-risk disease without Gleason pattern 5.

Impact of small prostate size on postimplant prostate dosimetry: analysis of a large community database.

PURPOSE: Achieving high-quality permanent interstitial brachytherapy in smaller prostates is thought to be more difficult than in larger glands. This study evaluates 4547 implants in a large community database to test this hypothesis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January 2003 to October 2010, 4547 prostate brachytherapy implants from a large community database were analyzed. The cohort was divided into three groups based on size, namely smaller (<30cm(3), n=1301), medium (30-40cm(3), n=1861), and large (>40cm(3), n=1385). Postimplant dosimetry, including D90, V100, and V100 by prostate sector, was performed for each implant. Comparison of mean V100 among small, medium, and larger prostate volume cohorts was performed using a one-way analysis of variance test. RESULTS: For the overall cohort, the D90 was 105% and 104% for monotherapy and boost, respectively. Mean D90 for small prostates was 106% and 104% for monotherapy and boost, respectively. Mean V100 for small prostates was 91.1% and 90.0%, respectively. Coverage for small prostates was as good or slightly better than larger glands. V100 by prostate sector revealed that there were no sectors for which smaller glands had significantly inferior coverage compared with larger glands. CONCLUSION: Although smaller prostates may in some respects be more technically difficult to implant than larger glands, a review of community-based brachytherapists reveals that with current implant techniques, good quality implants are readily achievable in men with smaller glands.

Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with clinically insignificant prostate cancer are candidates for active surveillance. However, uncertainty regarding the true extent of disease limits enthusiasm. In this study, we report our initial findings in patients with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-detected clinically insignificant prostate cancer undergoing transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy (TTMB) as a staging procedure. METHODS: Sixty-four patients who met the Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer underwent TTMB. Each biopsy core position was recorded in 3 dimensions with documentation of location of each positive biopsy core, Gleason score, percentage of involvement of each core, and presence/absence of perineural invasion. RESULTS: Mean pre-TRUS prostate specific antigen was 4.7 ng/mL with a Gleason score of 6 involving a median of 5% of 1 TRUS core. The mean number of TTMB biopsy cores was 58.5, with 6.6 cores positive for malignancy. Ten patients had clinically insignificant prostate cancer (15.7%), 8 had no TTMB-detected cancer (12.5%), and 46 (71.9%) had clinically significant cancer. Of patients with cancer, 37 (66.1%) had bilobar involvement and 25 (44.6%) harbored a Gleason score of ≥7. In a multivariate analysis, tobacco consumption was found to be most closely related to clinically significant disease on TTMB. CONCLUSIONS: TRUS biopsy underestimates disease extent and Gleason score in some patients. TTMB provides a more accurate assessment of the presence of aggressive histology.

Time to failure after definitive therapy for prostate cancer: implications for importance of aggressive local treatment.

PURPOSE: To explore patterns of time to failure in men receiving high doses of permanent seed brachytherapy with or without external beam radiation therapy as a function of risk status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two thousand two hundred and thirty four patients were treated with prostate brachytherapy with median follow up of 8.0 years. The population was 35% low risk, 49% intermediate risk, and 16% high risk (NCCN). Median day 0 implant D90 was 119% and V100 was 98%. Treatment failure was defined as PSA > 0.40 ng/mL after nadir. Rates of biochemical failure, distant metastases, and prostate cancer death were determined with non-prostate death as a competing risk. RESULTS: For all patients, the 10-year biochemical failure, distant metastases, and cause-specific mortality were 4.4%, 1.4%, and 1.3%, respectively. The biochemical failure rates were 1.3%, 4.8%, and 10.0% for men with low, intermediate, and high risk disease, respectively. Median time to failure was 2.8 years. In men who died from prostate cancer, the median time from treatment failure to death was 4.2 years. Overall, 83% of biochemical failures and 97% of metastases occurred within the first 4 years after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: With the dose escalation achieved by high quality brachytherapy dosimetry, even high-risk prostate cancer patients have excellent long term biochemical outcomes. Treatment failures occur early, and one third become metastatic and progress rapidly to prostate cancer death. The low frequency and pattern of failures suggest the presence of micrometastatic disease prior to treatment is rare, even in high risk patients.

Prognostic importance of tobacco use in men receiving definitive prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Several prominent publications have identified an overall association between tobacco use and an increased risk of disease recurrence and disease-specific mortality in prostate cancer patients. The authors explored whether tobacco use adversely impacts treatment outcomes in men treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From April 1995 to August 2008, 2057 patients underwent brachytherapy by a single brachytherapist. Median follow-up was 7.5 years. The role of tobacco use as a prognostic factor for biochemical progression-free survival, cause-specific survival, and overall survival was investigated. Differences in survival between smokers and nonsmokers were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: Current smokers presented with a lower body mass index (p<0.001), smaller prostate size (p=0.003), younger age (p<0.001), higher prostate-specific antigen level (p=0.002), a trend toward higher percentage biopsy core involvement (p=0.08), higher incidence of perineural invasion (p=0.015), and higher risk disease (p<0.001) than former or nonsmokers. There was no difference in biochemical progression-free survival (p=0.30) or cause-specific survival (p=0.72) at 10 years for smokers compared with nonsmokers. On univariate and multivariate analysis, tobacco use was an adverse risk factor for overall survival (p<0.001). There was no association between smoking and any prostate cancer-specific outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers treated with brachytherapy have excellent outcomes and are at no higher risk of treatment failure than men who are nonsmokers.

Serum testosterone kinetics after brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate temporal changes in testosterone after prostate brachytherapy and investigate the potential impact of these changes on response to treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2008 and March 2009, 221 consecutive patients underwent Pd-103 brachytherapy without androgen deprivation for clinically localized prostate cancer. Prebrachytherapy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and serum testosterone were obtained for each patient. Repeat levels were obtained 3 months after brachytherapy and at least every 6 months thereafter. Multiple clinical, treatment, and dosimetric parameters were evaluated to determine an association with temporal testosterone changes. In addition, analysis was conducted to determine if there was an association between testosterone changes and treatment outcomes or the occurrence of a PSA spike. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in serum testosterone over time after implant (p = 0.57). 29% of men experienced an increase ≥ 25%, 23% of men experienced a decrease ≥ 25%, and the remaining 48% of men had no notable change in testosterone over time. There was no difference in testosterone trends between men who received external beam radiotherapy and those who did not (p = 0.12). On multivariate analysis, preimplant testosterone was the only variable that consistently predicted for changes in testosterone over time. Men with higher than average testosterone tended to experience drop in testosterone (p < 0.001), whereas men with average or below average baseline testosterone had no significant change. There was no association between men who experienced PSA spike and testosterone temporal trends (p = 0.50) nor between initial PSA response and testosterone trends (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Prostate brachytherapy does not appear to impact serum testosterone over time. Changes in serum testosterone do not appear to be associated with PSA spike phenomena nor with initial PSA response to treatment; therefore, PSA response does not seem related to temporal testosterone changes.

Distant metastases following permanent interstitial brachytherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent publications have suggested high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy have a lower risk of distant metastases and improved cause-specific survival (CSS) than patients receiving definitive external beam radiation therapy (XRT). To date, none of these studies has compared distant metastases and CSS in brachytherapy patients. In this study, we evaluate such parameters in a consecutive cohort of brachytherapy patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From April 1995 to June 2007, 1,840 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with brachytherapy. Risk groups were stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (www.nccn.org) guidelines. Subgroups of 658, 893, and 289 patients were assigned to low, intermediate, and high-risk categories. Median follow-up was 7.2 years. Along with brachytherapy implantation, 901 (49.0%) patients received supplemental XRT, and 670 (36.4%) patients received androgen deprivation therapy (median duration, 4 months). The mode of failure (biochemical, local, or distant) was determined for each patient for whom therapy failed. Cause of death was determined for each deceased patient. Multiple parameters were evaluated for impact on outcome. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, metastases-free survival (MFS) and CSS at 12 years were 98.1% and 98.2%, respectively. When rates were stratified by low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, the 12-year MFS was 99.8%, 98.1%, and 93.8% (p < 0.001), respectively. CSS rates were 99.8%, 98.0%, and 95.3% (p < 0.001) for low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Biochemical progression-free survival was 98.7%, 95.9% and 90.4% for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox-regression analysis, MFS was mostly closely related to Gleason score and year of treatment, whereas CSS was most closely associated with Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent CSS and MFS rates are achievable with high-quality brachytherapy for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. These results compare favorably to alternative treatment modalities. In particular, our MFS and CSS rates for high-risk patients appear superior to those of published radical prostatectomy series.

20 Gy versus 44 Gy of supplemental external beam radiotherapy with palladium-103 for patients with greater risk disease: results of a prospective randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The necessity of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as a supplement to prostate brachytherapy remains unknown. We report brachytherapy outcomes for patients with higher risk features randomized to substantially different supplemental EBRT regimens. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between December 1999 and June 2004, 247 patients were randomized to 20 Gy vs. 44 Gy EBRT followed by a palladium-103 boost (115 Gy vs. 90 Gy). The eligibility criteria included clinically organ-confined disease with Gleason score 7-10 and/or pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 10-20 ng/mL. The median follow-up period was 9.0 years. Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) was defined as a PSA level of ≤0.40 ng/mL after nadir. The median day 0 prescribed dose covering 90% of the target volume was 125.7%; 80 men received androgen deprivation therapy (median, 4 months). Multiple parameters were evaluated for their effect on bPFS. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, the cause-specific survival, bPFS, and overall survival rates were 97.7%, 93.2%, and 80.8% at 8 years and 96.9%, 93.2%, and 75.4% at 10 years, respectively. The bPFS rate was 93.1% and 93.4% for the 20-Gy and 44-Gy arms, respectively (p = .994). However, no statistically significant differences were found in cause-specific survival or overall survival were identified. When stratified by PSA level of ≤10 ng/mL vs. >10 ng/mL, Gleason score, or androgen deprivation therapy, no statistically significant differences in bPFS were discerned between the two EBRT regimens. On multivariate analysis, bPFS was most closely related to the preimplant PSA and clinical stage. For patients with biochemically controlled disease, the median PSA level was <0.02 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: The results of the present trial strongly suggest that two markedly different supplemental EBRT regimens result in equivalent cause-specific survival, bPFS, and overall survival. It is probable that the lack of benefit for a higher supplemental EBRT dose is the result of the high-quality brachytherapy dose distributions.

Prognostic importance of small prostate size in men receiving definitive prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess whether small prostate size is an adverse prognostic factor in men undergoing brachytherapy in the same manner in which it seems to be for men undergoing radical prostatectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From April 1995 to June 2008, 2024 patients underwent brachytherapy by a single brachytherapist. Median follow-up was 7.4 years. The role of small prostate size (≤ 20 cm(3)) as a prognostic factor for biochemical progression-free survival, cause-specific survival, and all-cause mortality was investigated. The differences in survival between men with small and larger prostates were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: Median prostate size for the entire cohort was 32.7 cm(3). For the 167 men with small prostates, median prostate size was 17.4 cm(3). There was no difference in biochemical progression-free survival (95.2% vs 96.2%, P=.603), cause-specific survival (97.7% vs 98.3%, P=.546), or all-cause mortality (78.0% vs 77.2%, P=.838) at 10 years for men with small prostates compared with men with larger prostates. On univariate and multivariate analysis, small prostate size was not associated with any of the primary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Men with small prostates treated with brachytherapy have excellent outcomes and are at no higher risk of treatment failure than men with larger glands. High-quality implants with adequate margins seem sufficient to address the increased adverse risk factors associated with small prostate size.