Randomized Trial of Concomitant Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost Versus Conventionally Fractionated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Boost for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer (pHART2-RCT).

PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to report on the results of a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately hypofractionated (MH) versus conventionally fractionated (CF) radiation therapy to the prostate with elective nodal irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a single-center, prospective, phase 2 randomized study. Patients with high-risk disease (cT3, prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score 8-10) were eligible. Patients were randomized to either MH using a simultaneous integrated boost (68 Gy in 25 fractions to prostate; 48 Gy to pelvis) or CF (46 Gy in 23 fractions with a sequential boost to the prostate of 32 Gy in 16 fractions), with long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was grade ≥2 acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0). Secondary endpoints included late GI and GU toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: One-hundred eighty patients were enrolled; 90 were randomized to and received MH and 90 to CF. The median follow-up was 67.4 months. Seventy-five patients (41.7%) experienced a grade ≥2 acute GI and/or GU toxicity, including 34 (37.8%) in the MH and 41 (45.6%) in the CF arms, respectively (P = .29). Late grade ≥2 GI (P = .07) and GU (P = .25) toxicity was not significantly different between arms; however, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was worse in the MH group (P = .01). There were no statistically significant quality-of-life differences between the 2 treatments. There were no statistically significant differences observed in cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (P = .71) or distant metastasis (P = .31) and overall survival (P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: MH to the prostate and pelvis with androgen deprivation therapy for men with high-risk localized prostate cancer was not significantly different than CF with regard to acute toxicity, quality of life, and oncologic efficacy. However, late grade ≥3 GI toxicity was more common in the MH arm.

Dosimetric correlates of toxicities and quality of life following two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: There is no evidence-based data to guide dose constraints in two-fraction prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Using individual patient-data from two prospective trials, we aimed to correlate dosimetric parameters with toxicities and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 60 patients who had two-fraction prostate SABR in the 2STAR (NCT02031328) and 2SMART (NCT03588819) trials. The prescribed dose was 26 Gy to the prostate+/-32 Gy boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesions. Toxicities and QoL data were prospectively collected using CTCAEv4 and EPIC-26 questionnaire. The outcomes evaluated were acute and late grade ≥ 2 toxicities, and late minimal clinical important changes (MCIC) in QoL domains. Dosimetric parameters for bladder, urethra, rectum, and penile bulb were evaluated. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 56 months (range: 39-78 months). The cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual toxicities were 62%, 3%, and 17% respectively in the acute setting (<3 months), and 57%, 15%, and 52% respectively in late setting (>6 months). There were 36%, 28%, and 29% patients who had late MCIC in urinary, bowel and sexual QoL outcomes respectively. Bladder 0.5 cc was significant predictor for late grade ≥ 2 GU toxicities, with optimal cut-off of 25.5 Gy. Penile bulb D5cc was associated of late grade ≥ 2 sexual toxicities (no optimal cut-off was identified). No dosimetric parameters were identified to be associated with other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using real-life patient data from prospective trials with medium-term follow-up, we identified additional dose constraints that may mitigate the risk of late treatment-related toxicities for two-fraction prostate SABR.

Radiation therapy after radical surgery in prostate cancer.

Radiation therapy plays a key role in the treatment of prostate cancer on its own. For higher risk diseases, the risk of recurrence following single modality therapy increases and a combination of treatment modalities may be necessary to achieve optimal results. We review clinical outcomes of adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy, including disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival. We also discuss when best to intervene with post-prostatectomy radiotherapy.

To Boost or Not to Boost: Pooled Analyses From 2-Fraction SABR Trials for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Focal boost to dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) is an approach for dose escalation in prostate radiation therapy. In this study, we aimed to report the outcomes of 2-fraction SABR ± DIL boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included 60 patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer enrolled in 2 phase 2 trials (30 patients in each trial). In the 2STAR trial (NCT02031328), 26 Gy (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 105.4 Gy) was delivered to the prostate. In the 2SMART trial (NCT03588819), 26 Gy was delivered to the prostate, with up to 32 Gy boost to magnetic resonance imaging-defined DIL (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions = 156.4 Gy). The reported outcomes included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (ie, <0.4 ng/mL) at 4 years (4yrPSARR), biochemical failure (BF), acute and late toxicities, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: In 2SMART, median DIL D99% of 32.3 Gy was delivered. Median follow-up was 72.7 months (range, 69.1-75.) in 2STAR and 43.6 months (range, 38.7-49.5) in 2SMART. The 4yrPSARR was 57% (17/30) in 2STAR and 63% (15/24) in 2SMART (P = 0.7). The 4-year cumulative BF was 0% in 2STAR and 8.3% in 2SMART (P = 0.1). The 6-year BF in 2STAR was 3.5%. For genitourinary toxicities, there were differences in grade ≥1 urinary urgency in the acute (0% vs 47%; P < .001) and late settings (10% vs 67%; P < .001) favoring 2STAR. For urinary QOL, no difference was observed in the acute setting, but lower proportion in 2STAR had minimal clinically important changes in urinary QOL score in the late setting (21% vs 50%; P = .03). There were no significant differences in gastrointestinal and sexual toxicities and QOL in both acute and late settings between the 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first prospective data comparing 2-fraction prostate SABR ± DIL boost. The addition of DIL boost resulted in similar medium-term efficacy (in 4yrPSARR and BF), with impact on late urinary QOL outcomes.

Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores. CONCLUSION: Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Dose-Escalated Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Androgen Deprivation for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase III Multi-Institutional Trial.

PURPOSE: It remains unknown whether or not short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) improves survival among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: The NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 study randomly assigned 1,492 patients with stage T2b-T2c, Gleason score 7, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >10 and ≤20 ng/mL to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or with STAD (arm 2). STAD was 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist therapy plus antiandrogen. RT modalities were external-beam RT alone to 79.2 Gy or external beam (45 Gy) with brachytherapy boost. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), non-PCSM, distant metastases (DMs), PSA failure, and rates of salvage therapy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.3 years. Two hundred nineteen deaths occurred, 119 in arm 1 and 100 in arm 2. Five-year OS estimates were 90% versus 91%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.11]; P = .22). STAD resulted in reduced PSA failure (HR, 0.52; P <.001), DM (HR, 0.25; P <.001), PCSM (HR, 0.10; P = .007), and salvage therapy use (HR, 0.62; P = .025). Other-cause deaths were not significantly different (P = .56). Acute grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2% of patients in arm 1 and in 12% for arm 2 (P <.001). Cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 AEs was 14% in arm 1 and 15% in arm 2 (P = .29). CONCLUSION: STAD did not improve OS rates for men with IRPC treated with dose-escalated RT. Improvements in metastases rates, prostate cancer deaths, and PSA failures should be weighed against the risk of adverse events and the impact of STAD on quality of life.

Salvage prostate brachytherapy in radiorecurrent prostate cancer: An international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local recurrences after previous radiotherapy (RT) are increasingly being identified in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Salvage prostate brachytherapy (BT) is an effective and well tolerated treatment option. We sought to generate international consensus statements on the use and preferred technical considerations for salvage prostate BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International experts in salvage prostate BT were invited (n = 34) to participate. A three-round modified Delphi technique was utilized, with questions focused on patient- and cancer-specific criteria, type and technique of BT, and follow-up. An a priori threshold for consensus of ≥ 75% was set, with a majority opinion being ≥ 50%. RESULTS: Thirty international experts agreed to participate. Consensus was achieved for 56% (18/32) of statements. Consensus was achieved in several areas of patient selection: 1) A minimum of 2-3 years from initial RT to salvage BT; 2) MRI and PSMA PET should be obtained; and 3) Both targeted and systematic biopsies should be performed. Several areas did not reach consensus: 1) Maximum T stage/PSA at time of salvage; 2) Utilization/duration of ADT; 3) Appropriateness of combining local salvage with SABR for oligometastatic disease and 4) Repeating a second course of salvage BT. A majority opinion preferred High Dose-Rate salvage BT, and indicated that both focal and whole gland techniques could be appropriate. There was no single preferred dose/fractionation. CONCLUSION: Areas of consensus within our Delphi study may serve as practical advice for salvage prostate BT. Future research in salvage BT should address areas of controversy identified in our study.

Two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with simultaneous boost to MRI-defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion - Results from the 2SMART phase 2 trial.

PURPOSE: This is the first report of the 2SMART Phase II trial evaluating the safety of two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with focal boost to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defined dominant intra-prostatic lesion (DIL) for localised prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with low or intermediate risk prostate cancer were eligible for the study. The gross tumour volume (GTV) was MRI-defined DIL, and the clinical target volume (CTV) was entire prostate gland. The planning target volume (PTV) was a 2 mm expansion anteroposterior and lateral, and 2.5 mm superoinferior. The prescribed dose was 32 Gy to GTV, and 26 Gy to CTV. Primary endpoint was minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in quality of life (QOL) within 3-months of SABR, assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were acute and late toxicities (assessed using CTCAEv4), PSA nadir, and biochemical failure (based on Phoenix criteria). RESULTS: Thirty men were enrolled in the study - 2 (7%) had low-risk and 28 (93%) had intermediate risk prostate cancer. The median follow-up was 44 months (range:39-49 months). The median PSA nadir was 0.25 ng/mL, with median time to nadir of 37 months. One patient (3%) had biochemical failure at 44 months post-treatment. Ten (33%), six (20%), and three (10%) men had acute MCIC in urinary, bowel, and sexual QOL domains respectively. No acute or late grade ≥ 3 urinary or bowel toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: This novel protocol of two-fraction prostate SABR with MRI-defined DIL boost is a safe approach for dose-escalation, with minimal impact on acute QOL and no grade ≥ 3 toxicities.

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

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

A Prospective Study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Focal Salvage High-dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: Updated Results of 30 Patients.

PURPOSE: Limited prospective data on focal salvage high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy is available. We sought to explore the toxicities, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and efficacy of focal salvage HDR brachytherapy in a prospective clinical trial. This report presents the updated results of previously published data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer after previous external beam radiation therapy and/or brachytherapy were enrolled. Patients received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided, ultrasound-based focal HDR brachytherapy delivered over 2 fractions of 13.5 Gy delivered 1 to 2 weeks apart. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was not used. RESULTS: Thirty patients were treated between 2012 and 2019. At a median follow-up time of 39 months, the 3-year biochemical failure-free rate was 61.8% (95% confidence interval, 44.0%-86.6%), and the 3-year ADT/salvage therapy-free rate was 86.0% (95% confidence interval, 74.1%-99.8%). Seventeen patients experienced subsequent biochemical failure, 9 received ADT and/or further local salvage, and no patients died of prostate cancer. Of the 28 patients who had posttreatment MRI, 26 had a local treatment response. No acute grade ≥3 genitourinary/gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. One temporary late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity event occurred, but no late grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicity was seen. No significant decline in urinary or bowel HRQoL was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Focal salvage HDR brachytherapy has a favorable side effect profile, no significant decline in HRQoL, and the 3-year biochemical control rates are in line with those of other salvage options. Early MRI response at the treated site is common, but does not preclude subsequent biochemical failure.

A comparative study of patient-reported outcomes after contemporary radiation techniques for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We aim to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) deterioration at 12 months in low-and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) monotherapy and HDR boost. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients treated as part of 7 prospective clinical trials were included. All patients had low-or intermediate-risk PCa. Three strategies were considered: SABR, HDR monotherapy and HDR boost. HRQoL was prospectively measured at baseline and 12 months in all trials, using the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC). A minimally important difference (MID) was defined as a deterioration of HRQoL scores at 12 months compared to baseline ≥0.5 standard deviation of baseline score. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression using generalized estimating equations were used to compare the proportion of patients having MID between groups. A set of sensitivity analyses was conducted. RESULTS: 648 patients were included: 288, 173 and 187 respectively in the SABR, HDR monotherapy and HDR boost group. On univariate and multivariable analyses, SABR and HDR monotherapy compared to HDR boost, were associated with less deterioration in the urinary (38%, 40% vs. 55%; OR:0.543, 95%CI:0.320-0.922, p = 0.024; OR:0.468, 95%CI:0.432-0.507, p < 0.001) and sexual domains (38%, 42% vs. 47%; OR:0.762, 95%CI:0.645-0.900, p = 0.001; OR: 0.786, 95%CI:0.650-0.949, p = 0.012). These findings wererobust to a variety ofsensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Recent monotherapeutic approaches for low- and intermediate-risk PCa are associated with the preservation of patients HRQoL. Ultimately, the questions of efficacy, toxicity, and HRQoL will be best answered by a randomized clinical trial.

Success of targeted transperineal biopsy in patients on surveillance for grade group 1 prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the minimum cross-sectional ellipsoid area on magnetic resonance (MR) of intraprostatic nodules that best predicts for subsequent targeted biopsies revealing ≥ grade group (GG) 2 disease. METHODS: Forty-six patients previously diagnosed with GG 1 prostate adenocarcinoma who received cognitively fused, MR-guided, transperineal targeted biopsies in addition to six random biopsies were included in this analysis. A Youden cutpoint analysis was used to determine the ellipsoid area in the axial plane best predicting for ≥GG 2 disease within the targeted biopsy cores and logistic regression used to assess the result. RESULTS: Median time from MR imaging to targeted biopsy was 2.4 (1.4-5.5) months. Forty of 46 (87%) patients had one nodule and 6/46 (13%) had two separate nodules on MR that received targeted biopsy. Of the 52 nodules, five (10%), 33 (63%), and 14 (27%) were Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Thirteen (25%), six (12%), and 33 (64%) were in the anterior, medial, and posterior regions of the prostate, respectively. Median area was 0.72 (0.49-1.29) cm2 (average diameter 9.5 mm). Fifteen of 46 (33%) patients had ≥1 random biopsy and 20/52 (38%) nodules had ≥1 targeted biopsy revealing ≥GG 2 disease. The optimal area cutpoint was ≥0.7 cm2, with an area under the curve of 0.671 (0.510-0.832). On logistic regression, area ≥0.7 cm2 was solely predictive of targeted biopsy revealing ≥GG 2 disease (odds ratio 6.5, 1.3-32.4, p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Nodule area ≥0.7 cm2 may predict for transperineal-based targeted biopsies being positive for ≥GG 2 disease when 1-2 cores are taken.

Two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) versus two-fraction high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: Does dose heterogeneity matter?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Contemporary radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is deliverable via stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Here we report on a parallel cohort analysis of two prospective, phase II clinical trials of two-fraction prostate SABR versus two-fraction HDR monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrolled patients had histologically-confirmed PCa (clinical stage T1c-T2b; grade group 1, 2, or 3; and PSA < 20 ng/mL). SABR and HDR doses were 26 Gy and 27 Gy in 2 weekly fractions, respectively. Patient-level data from each cohort was analysed to assess prostate specific antigen (PSA) response kinetics, biochemical failure, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Thirty patients receiving SABR and 83 receiving HDR were included. Fifty percent and 30% of patients had unfavourable-intermediate risk disease, respectively. SABR patients had higher mean baseline PSA (8.7 versus 6.8 ng/mL, p = 0.016). Median follow-up was 72.7 and 65.3 months, respectively. Mean dose delivered (Dmean) was 26.6-26.8 Gy for SABR versus 35.5-45.5 Gy for HDR. Both cohorts achieved a median nadir PSA of 0.16 ng/mL at a median of 57 months post-treatment. Cumulative biochemical failure probability (±SE) at 72 months was 3.5% (±3.5%) for SABR versus 12.8% (±4.8%) for HDR (p = 0.19). Low rates of CTCAE grade ≥2 toxicity were observed in both cohorts. No differences in EPIC scores over time were observed between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Two-fraction SABR yields similar rates of biochemical failure, acute and late toxicities, and QOL as two-faction HDR brachytherapy. These data support the design of a randomized controlled trial comparing these treatments.

Salvage Low-Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy: Clinical Outcomes of a Phase 2 Trial for Local Recurrence after External Beam Radiation Therapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0526).

PURPOSE: We report efficacy of a prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00450411) of salvage low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT) for local failure (LF) after prior external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with minimum 5-years' follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had low/intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) before EBRT and biopsy-proven LF >30 months after EBRT, with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL and no regional/distant disease. The primary endpoint, late gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0) grade ≥3 were 14%. With minimum 5-year follow-up after salvage BT, secondary clinical outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS; includes death from any cause), disease-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and modelled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Local tumor progression (ie, LF), distant failure (DF), and biochemical failure (BF) were estimated using cumulative incidence. Time to LF, DF, and BF were modeled by cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: From May 2007 to January 2014, 20 centers registered 100 patients (92 analyzable). Median follow-up is 6.7 years (range, 0.3-11.2); median age 70 years (range, 55-82); median prior EBRT dose 74 Gy [interquartile range (IQR):70 - 76] at a median of 85 months prior (IQR 60-119 months). Androgen deprivation was combined with salvage BT in 16%. Ten-year OS is 70% [95% confidence interval (CI) 58% - 83%]. Nineteen patients died (5 PCa, 10 other, 4 unknown). Ten-year failure rates are local 5% (95% CI, 1-11), distant 19% (95% CI, 10-29), and biochemical 46% (95% CI, 34-57). DFS is 61% at 5 years and 33% at 10 years. No baseline characteristic was significantly associated with any clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective multicenter trial reporting outcomes of salvage LDR BT for LF after EBRT. Five-year freedom from BF is 68%, comparable to other salvage modalities. Although further LF is rare (5%), BF climbs to 46% by 10 years.

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

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

Radiation Oncologist Consultations Prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Disparities and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: In 2015, men undergoing radical prostatectomy in Ontario, Canada were recommended to undergo multidisciplinary care by seeing a radiation oncologist or discussion at multidisciplinary rounds before surgery. The a priori target rate was ≥76%. We used population-based data to explore factors associated with not receiving multidisciplinary care prior to radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2017 were identified using administrative data. Physician billings identified patients who received multidisciplinary care. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict receipt of multidisciplinary care. RESULTS: A total of 31,485 men underwent radical prostatectomy between 2007 and 2017. Of these patients 28.7% saw a radiation oncologist, 1.2% underwent multidisciplinary discussion and 1.9% had both before surgery. Multidisciplinary care receipt increased from 17.8% in 2007 to 47.8% in 2017 (p <0.001). The odds ratio between the highest and lowest geographic regions was 7.93 (95% CI 6.17-10.18, p <0.001). Lower odds of multidisciplinary care receipt were observed for men further from the nearest cancer center (OR 0.74 per 50 km, 95% CI 0.71-0.78, p <0.001) and higher odds for the highest versus lowest income quintile (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29-1.54, p <0.001). Of 128 urologists who performed ≥10 radical prostatectomies between 2016 and 2017, 29 (22.7%) met the target of having ≥76% of men seen for multidisciplinary care prior to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing utilization, many men do not receive multidisciplinary care prior to radical prostatectomy. While geography and the urologist appear to be the greatest factors predicting multidisciplinary care receipt, these factors are closely intertwined.

Defining radio-recurrent intra-prostatic target volumes using PSMA-targeted PET/CT and multi-parametric MRI.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate intra-prostatic cancer volumes for salvage radiotherapy in men with recurrent prostate cancer confined to the prostate post-primary radiotherapy using mpMRI and 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (PET). METHODS: Men with biochemical failure post-primary radiotherapy were enrolled in a multi-centre trial investigating mpMRI and PET. All men with isolated intra-prostatic recurrence are included in this secondary analysis. The intra-prostatic gross tumour volume (GTV) was manually delineated on mpMRI and was also delineated on PET using three methods: 1. manually, 2. using a 30% threshold of maximum intra-prostatic standard uptake value (SUVmax), and 3. using a 67% threshold of this SUVmax. Clinical target volumes (CTV) including expansions on each GTV were generated. Conformity indices were performed between the mpMRI CTV and each PET CTV. Correlation with biopsy and clinical outcomes were performed. RESULTS: Of the 36 men included, 30 (83%) had disease in two quadrants or less using the combination of mpMRI and PET. Mean target volume (union of CTV on mpMRI and CTV manually delineated on PET) was 12.2 cc (49% of prostate gland volume). 12/36 (33%) men had a biopsy. Per-patient sensitivity was 91% for mpMRI and 82% for PET. CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI and PET provide complementary information for delineation of intra-prostatic recurrent disease. Union of CTV on mpMRI and PET is often less than 50% of the prostate, suggesting this imaging could help define a target for focal salvage therapy.

Metastatic progression following multimodal therapy for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying the optimal management of unfavorable-risk (Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification [ProCaRS] high intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk categories) non-metastatic prostate cancer is an important public health concern given the large burden of this disease. We compared the rate of metastatic progression-free survival among men diagnosed with unfavorable-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer who were initially treated with radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Information was obtained from medical records at two academic centers in Canada from 333 men diagnosed with unfavorable-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer between 2007 and 2012. Median followup was 90.4 months. Men were eligible for the study if they received either primary radiation therapy (n=164) or radical prostatectomy (n=169), in addition to various adjuvant and salvage therapies when deemed clinically appropriate. Patients were matched on prognostic covariates using two matching techniques. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI) for metastatic progression-free survival between groups. RESULTS: After matching, treatment groups were balanced on prognostic variables except for percent core positivity. Hazard ratios from all Cox proportional hazards models (i.e., before and after matching, and with and without multivariable adjustment) showed no difference in the rate of metastatic progression-free survival between groups (adjusted unmatched HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63, 2.13, p=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic progression-free survival did not differ between men diagnosed with unfavorable risk non-metastatic prostate cancer who were treated with either radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy.

Elective nodal ultra hypofractionated radiation for prostate cancer: Safety and efficacy from four prospective clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) is controversial. With increasing use of SBRT to the prostate, data is needed regarding the safety and efficacy of ENI using ultra-hypofractionated radiation (UHRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2013-2020, 4 prospective clinical trials of intermediate or high-risk PCa receiving dose-escalated RT to the prostate (via HDR brachytherapy or SBRT boost) and ENI using UHRT (25 Gy in 5 weekly fractions) were conducted. Primary endpoints included acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities (CTCAE v3.0/4.0), and secondary endpoints included late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities, patient-reported quality of life (EPIC) and biochemical failure (Phoenix definition). RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-five patients were enrolled, of whom 98 (59%) had high-risk disease. ADT was used in 141 (85%). Median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 10-63). The worst acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities respectively were 48% and 7.5% for grade 2, and 2.7% and 0% for grade 3. Cumulative incidence of late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 36 months were 58% and 11.3% and for late grade 3+ toxicities were 1% and 0%, respectively. No grade 4+ acute or late toxicities were observed. Bowel and sexual toxicity significantly worsened up to 1-year compared to baseline. Over time, urinary (p < 0.0001), bowel (p = 0.0018) and sexual (p < 0.0001) scores significantly improved. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 98%. CONCLUSION: ENI using UHRT is associated with low incidence of grade 3+ toxicity, while grade 1-2 acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity is common. Randomized phase 3 trials are needed.