Effect of Brachytherapy With External Beam Radiation Therapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0232 Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy (BT) (COMBO) compared with BT alone would improve 5-year freedom from progression (FFP) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer stage cT1c-T2bN0M0, Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 or GS 7, and PSA < 10 were eligible. The COMBO arm was EBRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions) to prostate and seminal vesicles followed by BT prostate boost (110 Gy if 125-Iodine, 100 Gy if 103-Pd). BT arm was delivered to prostate only (145 Gy if 125-Iodine, 125 Gy if 103-Pd). The primary end point was FFP: PSA failure (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO] or Phoenix definitions), local failure, distant failure, or death. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-eight men were randomly assigned; 579 were eligible: 287 and 292 in COMBO and BT arms, respectively. The median age was 67 years; 89.1% had PSA < 10 ng/mL, 89.1% had GS 7, and 66.7% had T1 disease. There were no differences in FFP. The 5-year FFP-ASTRO was 85.6% (95% CI, 81.4 to 89.7) with COMBO compared with 82.7% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.1) with BT (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.26; Greenwood T P = .18). The 5-year FFP-Phoenix was 88.0% (95% CI, 84.2 to 91.9) with COMBO compared with 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.6) with BT (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.30; Greenwood T P = .19). There were no differences in the rates of genitourinary (GU) or GI acute toxicities. The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 2+ toxicity is 42.8% (95% CI, 37.0 to 48.6) for COMBO compared with 25.8% (95% CI, 20.9 to 31.0) for BT (P < .0001). The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 3+ toxicity is 8.2% (95% CI, 5.4 to 11.8) compared with 3.8% (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.5; P = .006). CONCLUSION: Compared with BT, COMBO did not improve FFP for prostate cancer but caused greater toxicity. BT alone can be considered as a standard treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

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.

The American College of Radiology and the American Brachytherapy Society practice parameter for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer.

Transperineal permanent brachytherapy is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Careful adherence to established brachytherapy standards has been shown to improve the likelihood of procedural success and reduce the incidence of treatment-related morbidity. A collaborative effort of the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) has produced practice parameters for LDR prostate brachytherapy. These practice parameters define the qualifications and responsibilities of all the involved personnel, including the radiation oncologist, physicist and dosimetrist. Factors with respect to patient selection and appropriate use of supplemental treatment modalities such as external beam radiation and androgen suppression therapy are discussed. Logistics with respect to the brachytherapy implant procedure, the importance of dosimetric guidelines, and attention to radiation safety procedures and documentation are presented. Adherence to these parameters can be part of ensuring quality and safety in a successful prostate brachytherapy program.

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.

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.

Establishing high-quality prostate brachytherapy using a phantom simulator training program.

PURPOSE: To design and implement a unique training program that uses a phantom-based simulator to teach the process of prostate brachytherapy (PB) quality assurance and improve the quality of education. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Trainees in our simulator program were practicing radiation oncologists, radiation oncology residents, and fellows of the American Brachytherapy Society. The program emphasized 6 core areas of quality assurance: patient selection, simulation, treatment planning, implant technique, treatment evaluation, and outcome assessment. Using the Iodine 125 ((125)I) preoperative treatment planning technique, trainees implanted their ultrasound phantoms with dummy seeds (ie, seeds with no activity). Pre- and postimplant dosimetric parameters were compared and correlated using regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one trainees successfully completed the simulator program during the period under study. The mean phantom prostate size, number of seeds used, and total activity were generally consistent between trainees. All trainees met the V100 >95% objective both before and after implantation. Regardless of the initial volume of the prostate phantom, trainees' ability to cover the target volume with at least 100% of the dose (V100) was not compromised (R=0.99 pre- and postimplant). However, the V150 had lower concordance (R=0.37) and may better reflect heterogeneity control of the implant process. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of implants from this phantom-based simulator shows a high degree of consistency between trainees and uniformly high-quality implants with respect to parameters used in clinical practice. This training program provides a valuable educational opportunity that improves the quality of PB training and likely accelerates the learning curve inherent in PB. Prostate phantom implantation can be a valuable first step in the acquisition of the required skills to safely perform PB.

A survey of current clinical practice in permanent and temporary prostate brachytherapy: 2010 update.

PURPOSE: To help establish patterns of care and standards of care of interstitial permanent low-dose-rate (LDR) and temporary high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer and to compare the results with a similar 1998 American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) survey. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A comprehensive questionnaire intended to survey specific details of current clinical brachytherapy practice was provided to the participants of the seventh ABS Prostate Brachytherapy School. Responses were tabulated and descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: Sixty-five brachytherapy practitioners responded to the survey. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of respondents performed LDR and 49% perform high-dose-rate brachytherapy. The median number of years of experience for LDR brachytherapists increased from 5 to 10 years over the course of the 12 years since the preceding survey. Compared with the first ABS, a smaller proportion of respondents received formal brachytherapy residency training (43% vs. 56%) or formal "hands-on" brachytherapy training (15% vs. 63%). There has been a marked decline in the utilization of the Mick applicator (Mick Radio-Nuclear Instruments, Inc., Mount Vernon, NY, USA) (60% vs. 28%) and an increase in the use of stranded seeds (40% vs. 11%). Compliance with postimplant dosimetry was higher in the 2010 survey. CONCLUSION: This survey does suggest an evolution in the practice of LDR brachytherapy since 1998 and aids in identifying aspects that require further progress or investigation. ABS guidelines and other practice recommendations appear to impact the practice of brachytherapy.

American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: A well-established body of literature supports the use of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer. Most of the articles describe HDR as a boost with adjuvant external beam radiation, but there is a growing experience with HDR monotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Brachytherapy Society has convened a group of expert practitioners and physicists to develop guidelines for the use of HDR in the management of prostate cancer. This involved an extensive literature review and input from an expert panel. RESULTS: Despite a wide variation in doses and fractionation reported, HDR brachytherapy provides biochemical control rates of 85-100%, 81-100%, and 43-93% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancers, respectively. Severe toxicity is rare, with most authors reporting less than 5% Grade 3 or higher toxicity. Careful attention to patient evaluation for appropriate patient selection, meticulous technique, treatment planning, and delivery are essential for successful treatment. CONCLUSION: The clinical outcomes for HDR are excellent, with high rates of biochemical control, even for high-risk disease, with low morbidity. HDR monotherapy, both for primary treatment and salvage, are promising treatment modalities.

Recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy with (131)Cs: a consensus report from the Cesium Advisory Group.

PURPOSE: Published clinical information on the safety and efficacy of (131)Cs implants is limited. We provide consensus recommendations for (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy based on experience to date. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Cesium Advisory Group (CAG) consists of experienced (131)Cs users. Recommendations are based on three clinical trials, one of which has completed accrual and has been published in the peer reviewed literature, and combined CAG experience of more than 1200 (131)Cs implants. RESULTS: We recommend using 1.059cGyh(-1)U(-1) as the dose rate constant for the IsoRay source. The prescription for monotherapy implants is 115Gy and when combined with 45-50Gy external beam it is 85Gy. Suggested individual source strength ranges from 1.6 to 2.2U. The release criterion for (131)Cs implants is 6mRh(-1) at 1m. (131)Cs brachytherapy should be performed differently from (125)I and (103)Pd brachytherapy: source placement is further from the urethra and rectum; the prostate V(150) should be < or =45%; sufficient margins may be obtained while limiting source placement to the capsule or close to the capsule. The increased dose rate may cause degradation of postimplant quantifiers due to edema. However, large variability in the magnitude and rate of resolution of edema make determination of the most representative postoperative imaging time impossible. The CAG recommends postimplant imaging on the day of the implant. Recommended postimplant evaluation goals include prostate D(90) greater than the prescription dose; maintaining D(u)(,30)<140% of the prescription dose and keeping V(r)(,100)<0.5cm(3). CONCLUSION: It was the consensus of the CAG that optimal (131)Cs implants should be performed differently from those performed with (125)I or (103)Pd. Guidelines have been established to allow for safe and effective delivery of (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy.

The observed variance between predicted and measured radiation dose in breast and prostate patients utilizing an in vivo dosimeter.

PURPOSE: Report the results of using a permanently implantable dosimeter in radiation therapy: determine specific adverse events, degree of migration, and acquire dose measurements during treatment to determine difference between expected and measured dose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Dose Verification System is a wireless, permanently implantable metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor dosimeter using a bidirectional antenna for power and data transfer. The study cohort includes 36 breast (33 patients received two devices) and 29 prostate (21 patients received two devices) cancer patients. A total of 1,783 and 1,749 daily dose measurements were obtained on breast and prostate patients, respectively. The measurements were compared with the planned expected dose. Biweekly computed tomography scans were obtained to evaluate migration and the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria, version 3, was used to evaluate adverse events. RESULTS: Only Grade I/II adverse events of pain and bleeding were noted. There were only four instances of dosimeter migration of >5 mm from known factors. A deviation of > or =7% in cumulative dose was noted in 7 of 36 (19%) for breast cancer patients. In prostate cancer patients, a > or =7% deviation was noted in 6 of 29 (21%) and 8 of 19 (42%) during initial and boost irradiation, respectively. The two patterns of dose deviation were random and systematic. Some causes for these differences could involve organ movement, patient movement, or treatment plan considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The Dose Verification System was not associated with significant adverse events or migration. The dosimeter can measure dose in situ on a daily basis. The accuracy and utility of the dose verification system complements current image-guided radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy techniques.

Multi-institutional experience using the MammoSite radiation therapy system in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer: 2-year results.

PURPOSE: To present a retrospective multi-institutional experience of patients treated with the MammoSite radiation therapy system (RTS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine institutions participated in a pooled analysis of data evaluating the clinical experience of the MammoSite RTS for delivering accelerated partial breast irradiation. Between 2000 and 2004, 483 patients were treated with the MammoSite RTS to 34 Gy delivered in 10 fractions. Treatment parameters were analyzed to identify factors affecting outcome. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 24 months (minimum of 1 year). Overall, infection was documented in 9% of patients, but the rate was only 4.8% if the catheter was placed after lumpectomy. Six patients (1.2%) experienced an in-breast failure; four failures occurred remote from the lumpectomy site (elsewhere failure). Cosmetic results were good/excellent in 91% of patients. Treatment parameters identified as significant on univariate analysis were tested in multivariate regression analysis. The closed-cavity placement technique significantly reduced the risk of infection (p = 0.0267). A skin spacing of <6 mm increased the risk of severe acute skin reaction (p = 0.0178) and telangiectasia (p = 0.0280). The use of prophylactic antibiotics reduced the risk of severe acute skin reaction (p < 0.0001). The use of multiple dwell positions reduced the risk of severe hyperpigmentation (p = 0.0278). Infection was associated with an increased risk of fair or poor overall cosmesis (p = 0.0009). CONCLUSIONS: In this series of patients, the MammoSite RTS seems to have acceptable toxicity rates and cosmetic outcomes, comparable to those with whole-breast radiotherapy. On the basis of these data, the closed-cavity placement technique, use of prophylactic antibiotics, use of multiple dwell positions, and a minimum skin spacing of 6 mm seem to improve patient outcome.

Technical evaluation of radiation dose delivered in prostate cancer patients as measured by an implantable MOSFET dosimeter.

PURPOSE: To perform a comparison of the daily measured dose at depth in tissue with the predicted dose values from treatment plans for 29 prostate cancer patients involved in a clinical trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients from three clinical sites were implanted with one or two dosimeters in or near the prostatic capsule. The implantable device, known as the DVS, is based on a metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) detector. A portable telemetric readout system couples to the dosimeter antenna (visible on kilovoltage, computed tomography, and ultrasonography) for data transfer. The predicted dose values were determined by the location of the MOSFET on the treatment planning computed tomography scan. Serial computed tomography images were taken every 2 weeks to evaluate any migration of the device. The clinical protocol did not permit alteration of the treatment parameters using the dosimeter readings. For some patients, one of several image-guided radiotherapy (RT) modalities was used for target localization. RESULTS: The evaluation of dose discrepancy showed that in many patients the standard deviation exceeded the previous values obtained for the dosimeter in a phantom. In some patients, the cumulative dose disagreed with the planned dose by > or =5%. The data presented suggest that an implantable dosimeter can help identify dose discrepancies (random or systematic) for patients treated with external beam RT and could be used as a daily treatment verification tool for image-guided RT and adaptive RT. CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that knowledge of the dose delivered per fraction can potentially prevent over- or under-dosage to the treatment area and increase the accuracy of RT. The implantable dosimeter could also be used as a localizer for image-guided RT.

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.