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.

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.

Refining the definition of biochemical failure in the era of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: The Phoenix definition and beyond.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Phoenix definition for biochemical failure (BCF) after radiotherapy uses nadir PSA (nPSA) + 2 ng/mL to classify a BCF and was derived from conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, which produces significantly higher nPSAs than stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). We investigated whether an alternative nPSA-based threshold could be used to define post-SBRT BCFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PSA kinetics data on 2038 patients from 9 institutions were retrospectively analyzed for low- and intermediate-risk PCa patients treated with SBRT without ADT. We evaluated the performance of various nPSA-based definitions. We also investigated the relationship of relative PSA decline (rPSA, PSA18month/PSA6month) and timing of reaching nPSA + 2 with BCF. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 71.9 months. BCF occurred in 6.9% of patients. Median nPSA was 0.16 ng/mL. False positivity of nPSA + 2 was 30.2%, compared to 40.9%, 57.8%, and 71.0% for nPSA + 1.5, nPSA + 1.0, and nPSA + 0.5, respectively. Among patients with BCF, the median lead time gained from an earlier nPSA + threshold definition over the Phoenix definition was minimal. Patients with BCF had significantly lower rates of early PSA decline (mean rPSA 1.19 vs. 0.39, p < 0.0001) and were significantly more likely to reach nPSA + 2 ≥ 18 months (83.3% vs. 21.1%, p < 0.0001). The proposed criterion (rPSA ≥ 2.6 or nPSA + 2 ≥ 18 months) had a sensitivity and specificity of 92.4% and 81.5%, respectively, for predicting BCF in patients meeting the Phoenix definition and decreased its false positivity to 6.4%. CONCLUSION: The Phoenix definition remains an excellent definition for BCF post-SBRT. Its high false positivity can be mitigated by applying additional criteria (rPSA ≥ 2.6 or time to nPSA + 2 ≥ 18 months).

Gantry-Mounted Linear Accelerator-Based Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To establish the safety and efficacy of gantry-mounted linear accelerator-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We pooled 921 patients enrolled on 7 single-institution prospective phase II trials of gantry-based SBRT from 2006 to 2017. The cumulative incidences of biochemical recurrence (defined by the Phoenix definition) and physician-scored genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (defined per the original trials using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were estimated using a competing risk framework. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between late toxicity and prespecified covariates: biologically effective dose, every other day versus weekly fractionation, intrafractional motion monitoring, and acute toxicity. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 0.5-10.8 years). In addition, 505 (54.8%) patients had low-risk disease, 236 (25.6%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 180 (19.5%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Intrafractional motion monitoring was performed in 78.0% of patients. The 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-1.7%), 2.2% (95% CI, 0-4.3%), and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.0-9.2%) for low-, favorable intermediate-, and unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Acute grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity occurred in 14.5% and 4.6% of patients, respectively. Three-year cumulative incidence estimates of late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity were 4.1% (95% CI, 2.6-5.5%) and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1%), respectively, with late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity estimates of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1-1.3%) and 0.4% (95% CI, 0-0.8%), respectively. The only identified significant predictors of late grade ≥2 toxicity were acute grade ≥2 toxicity (P < .001) and weekly fractionation (P < .01), although only 12.4% of patients were treated weekly. CONCLUSIONS: Gantry-based SBRT for prostate cancer is associated with a favorable safety and efficacy profile, despite variable intrafractional motion management techniques. These findings suggest that multiple treatment platforms can be used to safely deliver prostate SBRT.

Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO, ASCO and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline.

PURPOSE: The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dose-fractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength. RESULTS: Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary base-especially for ultrahypofractionation-highlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

Long-term Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Low-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Stereotactic body radiotherapy harnesses improvements in technology to allow the completion of a course of external beam radiotherapy treatment for prostate cancer in the span of 4 to 5 treatment sessions. Although mounting short-term data support this approach, long-term outcomes have been sparsely reported. Objective: To assess long-term outcomes after stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed individual patient data from 2142 men enrolled in 10 single-institution phase 2 trials and 2 multi-institutional phase 2 trials of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012. Statistical analysis was performed based on follow-up from January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence was estimated using a competing risk framework. Physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic event outcomes were defined per each individual study, generally by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring systems. After central review, cumulative incidences of late grade 3 or higher toxic events were estimated using a Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 2142 men (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.5] years) were eligible for analysis, of whom 1185 (55.3%) had low-risk disease, 692 (32.3%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 265 (12.4%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. The median follow-up period was 6.9 years (interquartile range, 4.9-8.1 years). Seven-year cumulative rates of biochemical recurrence were 4.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.8%) for low-risk disease, 8.6% (95% CI, 6.2%-11.0%) for favorable intermediate-risk disease, 14.9% (95% CI, 9.5%-20.2%) for unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, and 10.2% (95% CI, 8.0%-12.5%) for all intermediate-risk disease. The crude incidence of acute grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxic events was 0.60% (n = 13) and of gastrointestinal toxic events was 0.09% (n = 2), and the 7-year cumulative incidence of late grade 3 or higher genitourinary toxic events was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.8%-3.2%) and of late grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal toxic events was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk disease was associated with low rates of severe toxic events and high rates of biochemical control. These data suggest that stereotactic body radiotherapy is an appropriate definitive treatment modality for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline.

PURPOSE: The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dose-fractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength. RESULTS: Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary base-especially for ultrahypofractionation-highlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline.

PURPOSE: In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting. RECOMMENDATIONS: The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.

Dose escalation for prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR): Late outcomes from two prospective clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Optimal prostate SABR dose-fractionation is unknown. This study compares long-term outcomes from two prospective trials. METHODS: Study1 patients had low-risk PCa and received 35 Gy/5. Study2 patients had low/intermediate-risk PCa and received 40 Gy/5. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir + 2. RESULTS: 114 patients were included (study1, n = 84; study2, n = 30). Median follow-up was 9.6 years and 6.9 years. Median nPSA was 0.4 and 0.1 ng/ml. Nine patients had BF (8 in study1, 1 in study2); two were managed with ADT and four had local salvage. The BF rate was 2.5% and 12.8% at 5 and 10 years for study1 and 3.3% at 5 years for study 2. BF probability was 0% if PSA <0.4 at 4 years, and 20.5% at 10 years if PSA ≥0.4 (p = 0.02). Nine patients died, none of PCa. No patient has metastases or castrate-resistance. At 10 years, OS and CSS were 90.4% (p = 0.25) and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated prostate SABR was associated with lower nPSAs but no difference in BF, OS, CSS or MFS. PSA <0.4 at 4 years was a predictor of biochemical control. Half of patients with BF were successfully salvaged. Given that this is a favorable-risk cohort, longer follow-up will be needed to see if the lower nPSA translates into lower BF rates.

Second-Line Hormonal Therapy for Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion.

Purpose ASCO provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) offer direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potential practice-changing data. This PCO addresses second-line hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naïve men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who range from being asymptomatic with only biochemical evidence of CRPC to having documented metastases but minimal symptoms. Clinical Context The treatment goal for CRPC is palliation. Despite resistance to initial androgen deprivation therapy, most men respond to second-line hormonal therapies. However, guidelines have neither addressed second-line hormonal therapy for nonmetastatic CRPC nor provided specific guidance with regard to the chemotherapy-naïve population. Recent Data Six phase III randomized controlled trials and expert consensus opinion inform this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion For men with CRPC, a castrate state should be maintained indefinitely. Second-line hormonal therapy (eg, antiandrogens, CYP17 inhibitors) may be considered in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC at high risk for metastatic disease (rapid prostate-specific antigen doubling time or velocity) but otherwise is not suggested. In patients with radiographic evidence of metastases and minimal symptoms, enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone should be offered after discussion with patients about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences. Radium-223 and sipuleucel-T also are options. No evidence provides guidance about the optimal order of hormonal therapies for CRPC beyond second-line treatment. Prostate-specific antigen testing every 4 to 6 months is reasonable for men without metastases. Routine radiographic restaging generally is not suggested but can be considered for patients at risk for metastases or who exhibit symptoms or other evidence of progression. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Brachytherapy for Patients With Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario Joint Guideline Update.

Purpose To jointly update the Cancer Care Ontario guideline on brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer to account for new evidence. Methods An Update Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review and identified more recent randomized controlled trials comparing dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy in men with prostate cancer. Results Five randomized controlled trials provided the evidence for this update. Recommendations For patients with low-risk prostate cancer who require or choose active treatment, low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR) alone, EBRT alone, and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) should be offered to eligible patients. For patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer choosing EBRT with or without androgen-deprivation therapy, brachytherapy boost (LDR or high-dose rate [HDR]) should be offered to eligible patients. For low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (Gleason 7, prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/mL or Gleason 6, prostate-specific antigen, 10 to 20 ng/mL), LDR brachytherapy alone may be offered as monotherapy. For patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving EBRT and androgen-deprivation therapy, brachytherapy boost (LDR or HDR) should be offered to eligible patients. Iodine-125 and palladium-103 are each reasonable isotope options for patients receiving LDR brachytherapy; no recommendation can be made for or against using cesium-131 or HDR monotherapy. Patients should be encouraged to participate in clinical trials to test novel or targeted approaches to this disease. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/Brachytherapy-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement.

PURPOSE: To endorse Cancer Care Ontario's guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel. RECOMMENDATIONS: For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

Long-term results of a study using individualized planning target volumes for hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is the final report of a prospective phase I study which evaluated the feasibility, toxicities, and biochemical control in prostate cancer patients treated with a hypofractionated boost utilizing a fiducial marker-based daily image guidance strategy and small patient-specific PTV margins. METHODS: Low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients underwent transperineal ultrasound-guided implantation of three gold fiducial markers and were treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to 42 Gy (2 Gy/day). During the first nine fractions of treatment, pre- and post-treatment electronic portal imaging was performed to calculate intrafraction prostate motion. Patient-specific PTV margins were derived and a 30 Gy (3 Gy/day) intensity modulated radiotherapy boost was delivered (Total dose = 72 Gy in 31 fractions; EQD2 = 81 Gy, α/ß = 1.4). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients completed treatment and were followed for a median of 7.2 years (range, 1.2 - 9.5). Seven patients (21%) developed Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) late grade 2 GI toxicity and 1 patient (3%) developed late grade 2 GU toxicity. No patients developed late grade 3 GI or GU toxicity. To date, nine patients developed PSA relapse according to the Phoenix criteria. The actuarial five, seven and nine year biochemical control (BC) rates were 87% (95% confidence interval: 69-95), 77% (95% confidence interval: 56-89) and 66% (95% confidence interval: 42-82). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the use of prostate fiducial markers in combination with a daily online image guidance protocol permits reduced, patient-specific PTV margins in a hypofractionated treatment scheme. This treatment planning and delivery strategy was well tolerated in the intermediate time frame. The use of very small PTV margins did not result in excessive failures when compared to other radiation regimens of similar radiobiological intensity.

Systemic therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer:American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide treatment recommendations for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: When added to androgen deprivation, therapies demonstrating improved survival, improved quality of life (QOL), and favorable benefit-harm balance include abiraterone acetate/prednisone, enzalutamide, and radium-223 ((223)Ra; for men with predominantly bone metastases). Improved survival and QOL with moderate toxicity risk are associated with docetaxel/prednisone. For asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic men, improved survival with unclear QOL impact and low toxicity are associated with sipuleucel-T. For men who previously received docetaxel, improved survival, unclear QOL impact, and moderate to high toxicity risk are associated with cabazitaxel/prednisone. Modest QOL benefit (without survival benefit) and high toxicity risk are associated with mitoxantrone/prednisone after docetaxel. No benefit and excess toxicity are observed with bevacizumab, estramustine, and sunitinib. RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue androgen deprivation (pharmaceutical or surgical) indefinitely. Abiraterone acetate/prednisone, enzalutamide, or (223)Ra should be offered; docetaxel/prednisone should also be offered, accompanied by discussion of toxicity risk. Sipuleucel-T may be offered to asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic men. For men who have experienced progression with docetaxel, cabazitaxel may be offered, accompanied by discussion of toxicity risk. Mitoxantrone may be offered, accompanied by discussion of limited clinical benefit and toxicity risk. Ketoconazole or antiandrogens (eg, bicalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) may be offered, accompanied by discussion of limited known clinical benefit. Bevacizumab, estramustine, and sunitinib should not be offered. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate optimal sequences or combinations of therapies. Palliative care should be offered to all patients.

Evidence-based guideline recommendations on low-dose rate brachytherapy in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The Genitourinary Cancer Disease Site Group (GU DSG) and Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) in Ontario, Canada developed a guideline on low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) in patients with early-stage low-grade prostate cancer in 2001. The current updated guideline focuses on the research questions regarding the effect of LDR-BT alone, the effect of LDR-BT with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and the selection of an isotope. METHODS: This guideline was developed by using the methods of the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle and the core methodology was a systematic review. MEDLINE and EMBASE (from January 1996 to October 2011), the Cochrane Library, main guideline websites, and main annual meeting abstract websites specific for genitourinary diseases were searched. Internal and external reviews of the draft guideline were conducted. RESULTS: The draft guideline was developed according to a total of 10 systematic reviews and 55 full text articles that met the pre-planned study selection criteria. The quality of evidence was low to moderate. The final report reflects integration of the feedback obtained through the internal review (two oncologists and a methodologist) and external review (five target reviewers and 48 professional consultation reviewers) process, with final approval given by the GU DSG and the PEBC. CONCLUSION: THE MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS ARE: (1) For patients with newly diagnosed low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who require or choose active treatment, LDR-BT alone is a treatment option as an alternative to EBRT alone or RP alone; and (2) I-125 and Pd-103 are each reasonable isotope options.

A prospective study on pain score with transperineal prostatic gold seed fiducial implantation under local anesthetic alone.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to monitor patient pain score with transperineal prostatic gold seed implantation in the absence of conscious sedation. METHODS: All patients who were scheduled for image-guided external beam radiation (IGRT) and referred for gold seed fiducials were eligible to participate. Gold seed implants were performed by two radiation oncologists between December 2007 and April 2008. Patients received only local and deep anesthetic. No patients had prophylactic IV cannulation for the procedure. Three gold seeds were inserted transperineally into the prostate. A visual analogue scale from 0 to 10 was used to assess the pain at baseline, local and deep anesthetic infiltration, with each seed drop, and after the completion of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were accrued to this study. The highest recorded increase in pain score was at the time point of deep local anesthesia, at which the mean pain score was 3.8. The mean pain scores at each seed drop were 0.8 (standard deviation [SD]=1.24), 1 (SD=1.26), and 0.5 (SD=0.90), respectively. All gold seed insertion procedures were well-tolerated, with no patients having significant pain post-procedure, and no significant procedural complications. There were only slight increases in dysuria, urinary frequency, constipation, urinary retention and flatulence in 7 patients - none of which required intervention. INTERPRETATION: Transperineal ultrasound-guided gold seed implantation without conscious sedation is well-tolerated and associated with a low complication rate. It is a convenient outpatient procedure obviating the need for resource intensive postoperative monitoring.

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: We review the current evidence for the role of low-dose rate brachytherapy (PB) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer using a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (from January 1996 to October 2011), the Cochrane Library, relevant guideline web-sites, and websites for meetings specific for genitourinary diseases. RESULTS: Ten systematic reviews and 55 single-study papers met the pre-planned study selection criteria. In the end, 36 articles were abstracted and analyzed for this systematic review. There is no evidence for a difference in efficacy between PB and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or between PB and radical prostatectomy (RP). During the 6 months to 3 years after treatment, PB was associated with less urinary incontinence and sexual impotency than RP, and RP was associated with less urinary irritation and rectal morbidity than PB. However, these differences diminished over time. PB conferred less risk of impotency and rectal morbidity in the three years after treatment than EBRT. Iodine-125 and alladium-103 did not differ with respect to biochemical relapse-free survival and patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PB alone is a treatment option with equal efficacy to EBRT or RP alone in patients with newly diagnosed low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who require or choose active treatment.