Proton therapy for the management of localized prostate cancer: Long-term clinical outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a standard-of-care treatment option for localized prostate cancer at our comprehensive cancer center. However, there are few large-scale analyses examining the long-term clinical outcomes. Therefore, this article aims to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and toxicity of PT in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of 2772 patients treated from May 2006 through January 2020. Disease risk was stratified according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as low [LR, n = 640]; favorable-intermediate [F-IR, n = 850]; unfavorable-intermediate [U-IR, n = 851]; high [HR, n = 315]; or very high [VHR, n = 116]. Biochemical failure and toxicity were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate models. RESULTS: The median patient age was 66 years; the median follow-up time was 7.0 years. Pelvic lymph node irradiation was prescribed to 28 patients (1%) (2 [0.2%] U-IR, 11 [3.5%] HR, and 15 [12.9%] VHR). The median dose was 78 Gy in 1.8-2.0 Gy(RBE) fractions. Freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR) rates at 5 years and 10 years were 98.2% and 96.8% for the LR group; 98.3% and 93.6%, F-IR; 94.2% and 90.2%, U-IR; 94.3% and 85.2%, HR; and 86.1% and 68.5%, VHR. Two patients died of prostate cancer. Overall rates of late grade ≥ 3 GU and GI toxicity were 0.87% and 1.01%. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy for localized prostate cancer demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes in this large cohort, even among higher-risk groups with historically poor outcomes despite aggressive therapy.

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Current Status of MRI and PET in the NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer.

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality for men in the United States, with approximately 1 in 9 being diagnosed with PCa in their lifetime. The role of imaging in the evaluation of men with PCa has evolved and currently plays a central role in diagnosis, treatment planning, and evaluation of recurrence. Appropriate use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-guided transrectal ultrasound (MR-TRUS) biopsy increases the detection of clinically significant PCa while decreasing the detection of clinically insignificant PCa. This process may help patients with clinically insignificant PCa avoid the adverse effects of unnecessary therapy. In the setting of a known PCa, patients with low-grade disease can be observed using active surveillance, which often includes a combination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, serial mpMRI, and, if indicated, follow-up systematic and targeted TRUS-guided tissue sampling. mpMRI can provide important information in the posttreatment setting, but PET/CT is creating a paradigm shift in imaging standards for patients with locally recurrent and metastatic PCa. This article examines the strengths and limitations of mpMRI for initial PCa diagnosis, active surveillance, recurrent disease evaluation, and image-guided biopsies, and the use of PET/CT imaging in men with recurrent PCa. The goal of this review is to provide a rational basis for current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for PCa as they pertain to the use of these advanced imaging modalities.

Randomized Trial of Hypofractionated, Dose-Escalated, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Versus Conventionally Fractionated IMRT for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy delivers larger daily doses of radiation and may increase the biologically effective dose delivered to the prostate. We conducted a randomized trial testing the hypothesis that dose-escalated, moderately hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) improves prostate cancer control compared with conventionally fractionated IMRT (CIMRT) for men with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men were randomly assigned to 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions delivered over 8.4 weeks (CIMRT) or 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions delivered over 6 weeks (HIMRT, biologically equivalent to 85 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions assuming prostate cancer α-to-ß ratio of 1.5). Failure was defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir plus 2 ng/mL) or initiation of salvage therapy. Modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria were used to grade late (≥ 90 days after completion of radiotherapy) GI and genitourinary toxicity. RESULTS: Most of the 206 men (72%) had cT1, Gleason score 6 or 7 (99%), and PSA level ≤ 10 ng/mL (90%) disease. Androgen deprivation therapy was received by 24%. With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, men treated with HIMRT experienced fewer treatment failures (n = 10) than men treated with CIMRT (n = 21; P = .036). The 8-year failure rate was 10.7% (95% CI, 5.8% to 19.1%) with HIMRT and 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1% to 25.4%) with CIMRT. There was no difference in overall survival ( P = .39). There was a nonsignificant increase in late grade 2 or 3 GI toxicity with HIMRT (8-year 5.0% v 12.6%; P = .08). However, GI toxicity was only 8.6% when rectal volume receiving 65 Gy of HIMRT was ≤ 15%. Late genitourinary toxicity was similar ( P = .84). There was no grade 4 toxicity. CONCLUSION: The results of this randomized trial demonstrate superior cancer control for men with localized prostate cancer who receive dose-escalated moderately hypofractionation radiotherapy while shortening treatment duration.

Quality of life after brachytherapy or bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To provide comparative data on quality of life (QoL) after prostate cancer treatment to help patients make an informed decision regarding their choice of treatment. METHODS: Patients with pathologically proven, non-metastatic, T1-T3bN0 prostate cancer were included in this prospective non-randomized study if they were to receive treatment with curative intent. Sample size was at least 181 patients per cohort/treatment type. QoL was recorded at baseline and at each follow-up using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. The minimal clinically important difference was defined as half of the standard deviation of the baseline score for each domain. A mixed effects model was used to compare the different treatments. Data are presented on the brachytherapy and the bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) cohorts. Hormonotherapy was not allowed. RESULTS: Between November 2007 and January 2013, 181 patients who received brachytherapy and 210 patients who underwent RARP were included. Of the patients who underwent RARP, 178 had bilateral nerve-sparing and were included in the present analysis. Response rate to EPIC questionnaires were higher in the brachytherapy than in the RARP arm: 82% vs 57% at 2 years after treatment and 55% vs 45% at 4 years after treatment. In the mixed effects model, patients in the RARP arm had better QoL with regard to urinary irritation/obstruction or bother and bowel function, and lower QoL regarding sexual function and urinary incontinence. Results were confirmed in a propensity score-matched model. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the brachytherapy group at 1, 2 and 3 years after treatment. CONCLUSION: This prospective non-randomized study shows long-term differences in QoL domains after bilateral nerve-sparing RARP and brachytherapy. Differences in patient satisfaction should be further explored. These results could be used to counsel patients in the decision-making process.

Patient-reported health-related quality of life for men treated with low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy with 125-iodine, 103-palladium, or 131-cesium: Results of a prospective phase II study.

PURPOSE: To compare quality of life (QoL) after brachytherapy with one of the three approved radioactive isotopes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with mostly favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated on this prospective phase II trial with brachytherapy as monotherapy, without hormonal therapy. QoL was recorded at baseline and each follow-up by using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite instrument. The minimal clinically important difference was defined as half the standard deviation of the baseline score for each domain. Mixed effect models were used to compare the different isotopes, and time-driven activity-based costing was used to compute costs. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2013, 300 patients were treated with iodine-125 (I-125, n = 98, prescribed dose [PD] = 145 Gy), palladium-103 (Pd-103, n = 102, PD = 125 Gy), or cesium-131 (Cs-131, n = 100, PD = 115 Gy). Median age was 64.9 years. Median follow-up time was 5.1 years for the entire cohort, and 7.1, 4.8 and 3.3 years for I-125, Pd-103, and Cs-131 groups, respectively. All three isotope groups showed an initial drop in QoL at first follow-up, which gradually improved over the first 2 years for urinary and bowel domains. QoL profiles were similar between I-125 and Pd-103, whereas Cs-131 showed a statistically significant decrease in QoL regarding bowel and sexual function at 12 months compared with Pd-103. However, these differences did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. Compared with I-125, the use of Pd-103 or Cs-131 resulted in cost increases of 18% and 34% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The three different isotopes produced a similar QoL profile. Statistically significant differences favored Pd-103/I-125 over Cs-131 for bowel and sexual QoL, but this did not reach clinical significance.

Prospective Phase 2 Trial of Permanent Seed Implantation Prostate Brachytherapy for Intermediate-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Efficacy, Toxicity, and Quality of Life Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report the efficacy, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer after brachytherapy in a prospective phase 2 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective phase 2 trial involved 300 patients with previously untreated prostate cancer treated from 2006 through 2013. Eligible patients had ≤cT2b (T3 excluded according to magnetic resonance imaging), Gleason score (GS) 6 with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 10-15 ng/mL, or GS 7 with PSA <10 ng/mL, and were treated with prostate brachytherapy (without hormonal therapy). RESULTS: Median patient age was 64.9 years; 3.7% had GS 6, 78.7% had GS 7 (3+4), and 17.7% had GS 7 (4+3). Median follow-up time was 5.1 years. Median PSA at 5 years was 0.01 ng/mL (range, 0-6.0 ng/mL). Ten biochemical failures occurred, for a 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rate of 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.1-99.5), and 16 patients died, only 1 from prostate cancer, for 5-year rates of overall and biochemical progression-free survival of 94.9% (95% CI, 92.1-97.9) and 92.7% (95% CI, 89.3-96.2%). Four patients had late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity, and 2 patients had late grade 3 rectal toxicity; no grade 4 or 5 toxicity was observed. Rates of "moderate or big problems" at 4 years were 7.4% for urinary (vs 0.4% at baseline), 2.9% bowel (vs 0.4%), and 29.7% sexual function (vs 19.7%). Most men were "satisfied or extremely satisfied" (91% at 2 years after treatment and 93% at 4 years). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy monotherapy is safe and effective and leads to good quality of life for some men with localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Patient-reported Urinary, Bowel, and Sexual Function After Hypofractionated Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results From a Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy may increase biologically effective dose delivered while shortening treatment duration, but information on patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual function after dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy is limited. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a randomized trial comparing hypofractionated and conventional prostate radiotherapy. METHODS: Men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled in a trial that randomized men to either conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT, 75.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions) or to dose-escalated hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT, 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions). Questionnaires assessing urinary, bowel, and sexual function were completed pretreatment and at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: Of 203 eligible patients, 185 were evaluable for PROs. A total of 173 completed the pretreatment questionnaire (82 CIMRT, 91 HIMRT) and 102 completed the 2-year questionnaire (46 CIMRT, 56 HIMRT). Patients who completed PROs were similar to those who did not complete PROs (all P>0.05). Patient characteristics, clinical characteristics, and baseline symptoms were well balanced between the treatment arms (all P>0.05). There was no difference in patient-reported bowel (urgency, control, frequency, or blood per rectum), urinary (dysuria, hematuria, nocturia, leakage), or sexual symptoms (erections firm enough for intercourse) between treatment arms at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after treatment (all P>0.01). Concordance between physician-assessed toxicity and PROs varied across urinary and bowel domains. DISCUSSION: We did not detect an increase in patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual symptom burden after dose-escalated intensity-modulated prostate radiation therapy using a moderate hypofractionation regimen (72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation.

Long-term economic value of hypofractionated prostate radiation: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) for prostate cancer shortens the treatment course while providing outcomes comparable with those of conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT). To determine the long-term economic value of HIMRT, including the costs of managing long-term radiation toxicities, a cost minimization analysis compared CIMRT with dose-escalated HIMRT using patient-level data from a randomized trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Men with localized prostate cancer were randomized to CIMRT (75.6 Gy in 42 fractions over 8.4 weeks) or HIMRT (72 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks). A decision tree modeled trial probabilities of maximum late bowel and urinary toxicities using patient-level data with a median follow-up of 6 years. Costs were estimated from the healthcare perspective using the 2014 national reimbursement rates for services received. Patient-level institutional costs, adjusted to 2014 dollars, verified reimbursements. A sensitivity analysis assessed model uncertainty. RESULTS: The cost for HIMRT and toxicity management was $22,957, saving $7,000 compared with CIMRT ($30,241). CIMRT was the common factor among the 5 most influential scenarios that contributed to total costs. Toxicity represented a small part (<10%) of the average total cost for patients with either grade 2-3 bowel toxicity or grade 2-3 urinary toxicity. However, toxicity management reached up to 26% of the total cost for patients with both high-grade bowel and urinary toxicities. There was no threshold at which CIMRT became the less costly regimen. Institutional costs confirmed the economic value of HIMRT ($6,000 in savings). CONCLUSIONS: HIMRT is more cost-efficient than CIMRT for treating prostate cancer, even when taking into account the costs related to late radiation toxicities. HIMRT enhances the value of prostate radiation when compared with CIMRT.

Implementation of hypofractionated prostate radiation therapy in the United States: A National Cancer Database analysis.

PURPOSE: Preclinical and clinical research over the past several decades suggests that hypofractionated (HFxn) radiation therapy schedules produce similar treatment outcomes compared with conventionally fractionated (CFxn) radiation therapy for definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa). We sought to evaluate national trends and identify factors associated with HFxn utilization using the US National Cancer Database. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We queried the National Cancer Database for men diagnosed with localized (N0,M0) PCa from 2004 through 2013 treated with external beam radiation therapy. Patients were grouped by dose per fraction (DpF) in Gray: CFxn was defined as DpF ≤2.0, moderate HFxn as DpF >2.0 but <5.0, and extreme HFxn as DpF ≥5.0. Men receiving DpF <1.5 or >15.0 were excluded, as were those receiving <25 or >90 Gy total dose. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify demographic, clinical, and treatment factor associations. RESULTS: A total of 132,403 men were identified, with 120,055 receiving CFxn, 7264 moderate HFxn, and 5084 extreme HFxn. Although CFxn was by far the most common approach over the analysis period, HFxn use increased from 6.2% in 2004 to 14.2% in 2013 (P < .01). Extreme HFxn use increased the most (from 0.3% to 8.5%), whereas moderate HFxn utilization was unchanged (from 5.9% to 5.7%). HFxn use was independently associated with younger age, later year of diagnosis, non-black race, non-Medicaid insurance, non-Western residence, higher income, academic treatment facility, greater distance from treatment facility, low-risk disease group (by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria), and nonreceipt of hormone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although CFxn remains the most common radiation therapy schedule for localized PCa, use of HFxn appears to be increasing in the United States as a result of increased extreme HFxn use. Financial and logistical factors may accelerate adoption of shorter schedules. Considering the multiple demographic and prognostic differences identified between these groups, randomized outcome data comparing extreme HFxn to alternatives are desirable.

Permanent prostate brachytherapy postimplant magnetic resonance imaging dosimetry using positive contrast magnetic resonance imaging markers.

PURPOSE: Permanent prostate brachytherapy dosimetry using computed tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (CT-MRI) fusion combines the anatomic detail of MRI with seed localization on CT but requires multimodality imaging acquisition and fusion. The purpose of this study was to compare the utility of MRI only postimplant dosimetry to standard CT-MRI fusion-based dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-three patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy with use of positive contrast MRI markers were included in this study. Dose calculation to the whole prostate, apex, mid-gland, and base was performed via standard CT-MRI fusion and MRI only dosimetry with prostate delineated on the same T2 MRI sequence. The 3-dimensional (3D) distances between seed positions of these two methods were also evaluated. Wilcoxon-matched-pair signed-rank test compared the D90 and V100 of the prostate and its sectors between methods. RESULTS: The day 0 D90 and V100 for the prostate were 98% versus 94% and 88% versus 86% for CT-MRI fusion and MRI only dosimetry. There were no differences in the D90 or V100 of the whole prostate, mid-gland, or base between dosimetric methods (p > 0.19), but prostate apex D90 was high by 13% with MRI dosimetry (p = 0.034). The average distance between seeds on CT-MRI fusion and MRI alone was 5.5 mm. After additional automated rigid registration of 3D seed positions, the average distance between seeds was 0.3 mm, and the previously observed differences in apex dose between methods was eliminated (p > 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent prostate brachytherapy dosimetry based only on MRI using positive contrast MRI markers is feasible, accurate, and reduces the uncertainties arising from CT-MRI fusion abating the need for postimplant multimodality imaging.

Prostate brachytherapy, either alone or in combination with external beam radiation, is associated with longer overall survival in men with favorable pathologic Group 4 (Gleason score 8) prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Conventional prostate cancer risk stratification results in considerable heterogeneity within each prognostic group. Men with pathologic grade Group 4 (Gleason score 8) but otherwise low-risk features have been identified as a favorable subset of high-risk prostate cancer. Given recent randomized data supporting improved cancer outcome with brachytherapy in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, we sought to evaluate brachytherapy utilization and overall survival (OS) for these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We queried the National Cancer Database for clinical T1c-T2a N0 M0 prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL and Gleason score 8 adenocarcinoma on biopsy. All patients received androgen deprivation therapy and either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone, brachytherapy alone, or a combination of EBRT with brachytherapy boost (brachytherapy + EBRT). Kaplan-Meier OS estimates as well as univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed to further control for baseline confounders. RESULTS: Four thousand four hundred ninety-six patients were identified with a median followup of 62.5 months (range, 2.3-119.8). Median age was 72 years (range, 41-90+). Utilization of brachytherapy decreased from 2004 to 2009. The odds ratio for brachytherapy by year (continuous variable) was 0.86 (p < 0.001). Five-year OS was 84%, 88%, and 89% for the EBRT alone, brachytherapy alone, and brachytherapy + EBRT groups, respectively. On multivariate analysis, higher median income, low comorbidity score, and treatment with brachytherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.66; p = 0.005) or brachytherapy + EBRT (hazard ratio, 0.70; p = 0.001) remained associated with longer OS. Propensity score matching confirmed longer OS associated with either brachytherapy regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Of those men with World Health Organization pathologic grade Group 4 (Gleason score 8) prostate cancer and otherwise favorable prognostic features treated with androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy, longer OS was achieved when prostate brachytherapy was included, whether used alone or in combination with supplemental EBRT. In spite of these excellent outcomes, prostate brachytherapy utilization is declining in the United States.

Permanent prostate brachytherapy pubic arch evaluation with diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging.

PURPOSE: Pubic arch interference (PAI), when it occurs, is often a limiting factor for patients pursuing brachytherapy treatment of prostate cancer. Pre-brachytherapy pubic arch evaluation is often performed by CT or transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), but MRI has increasingly replaced these modalities for prostate cancer evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine if staging MRI could be used to evaluate PAI and compare it with these other imaging methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-one consecutive patients undergoing brachytherapy evaluation had pelvic MRI-, CT-, and TRUS-based brachytherapy simulation. Pubic arch overlap on T2-weighted MRI and CT was determined by contouring the prostate gland on its largest axial slice and superimposing this contour onto the pubic arch bones. The largest degree of overlap of the prostate gland on MRI and CT was used to predict the existence of PAI as determined by TRUS-based simulation. The correlation between prostate contour overlap was also compared between MRI and CT. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (48%) exhibited PAI on TRUS brachytherapy simulation evaluation. The average (±standard error) amount of prostate contour overlap on the pubic arch on CT was 2.9 ± 0.6 mm and on MRI was 2.0 ± 0.6 mm (linear correlation, R, of 0.783, p < 0.001). CT and MRI were equally predictive of PAI on TRUS evaluation (area under the curve = 0.75). CONCLUSION: Pre-brachytherapy pubic arch assessment with diagnostic MRI provides similar predictability of PAI compared with CT, potentially obviating the need for additional pre-brachytherapy CT in the setting of staging MRI.

Patient characterization and usage trends of proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer in the United States: A study of the National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: To evaluate usage trends and identify factors associated with proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to alternative forms of external beam radiation therapy (RT) (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for men with localized (N0, M0) prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2013, treated with EBRT, with available data on EBRT modality (photon vs. PBT). Binary multiple logistic regression identified variables associated with EBRT modality. RESULTS: In total, 143,702 patients were evaluated with relatively few men receiving PBT (5,709 [4.0%]). Significant differences in patient and clinical characteristics were identified between those men treated with PBT compared to those treated with photon (odds ratio [OR]; 95% CI). Patients treated with PBT were generally younger (OR = 0.73; CI: 0.67-0.82), National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk compared to intermediate (0.71; 0.65-0.78) or high (0.44; 0.38-0.5) risk, white vs. black race (0.66; 0.58-0.77), with less comorbidity (Charlson-Deyo 0 vs. 2+; 0.70; 0.50-0.98), live in higher income counties (1.55; 1.36-1.78), and live in metropolitan areas compared to urban (0.21; 0.18-0.23) or rural (0.14; 0.10-0.19) areas. Most patients treated with PBT travelled more than 100 miles to the treatment facility. Annual PBT utilization significantly increased in both total number and percentage of EBRT over time (2.7%-5.6%; P<0.001). PBT utilization increased mostly in men classified as National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk (4%-10.2%). CONCLUSION: PBT for men with localized prostate cancer significantly increased in the United States from 2004 to 2013. Significant demographic and prognostic differences between those men treated with photons and protons were identified.

Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate brachytherapy: Evidence, clinical end points to data, and direction forward.

The integration of multiparametric MRI into prostate brachytherapy has become a subject of interest over the past 2 decades. MRI directed high-dose-rate and low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy offers the potential to improve treatment accuracy and standardize postprocedure quality. This article reviews the evidence to date on MRI utilization in prostate brachytherapy and postulates future pathways for MRI integration.

Development of a magnetic resonance imaging protocol to visualize encapsulated contrast agent markers in prostate brachytherapy recipients: initial patient experience.

PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT)-based prostate post-implant dosimetry allows for definitive seed localization but is associated with high interobserver variation in prostate contouring. Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based post-implant dosimetry allows for accurate anatomical delineation but is limited due to inconsistent seed localization. Encapsulated contrast agent markers were previously proposed to overcome the seed localization limitation on MRI images by placing hyperintense markers adjacent to hypointense seeds. The aim of this study was to assess the appearance of these markers in prostatic tissue, and develop an MRI protocol to enable marker visualization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We acquired MRI scans in prostate implant patients (n = 10) on day 0 (day of implant) and day 30 (month after implant). Before implantation of the markers, the routine post-implant MRI protocol included a 3D T2-weighted fast-spin-echo (FSE) sequence with which markers and seeds could not be clearly visualized. To visualize the MRI markers, a 3D fast radiofrequency-spoiled gradient-recalled echo (FSPGR) sequence was evaluated for marker and seed visibility, as well as prostate boundary definitions. RESULTS: The 3D FSPGR sequence allowed for the visualization of markers in the prostate, enabling the distinction of signal voids as seeds versus needle tracks. The updated post-implant MRI protocol consists of this 3D FSPGR scan and an optional 3D T2-weighted FSE scan. The optional 3D T2-weighted FSE sequence may be employed to better visualize intraprostatic detail. We also described the observed image artifacts, including seed susceptibility, marker chemical shift, partial volume averaging, motion, and wraparound artifacts. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated an MRI protocol for use with hyperintense encapsulated contrast agent markers to assist in the identification of hypointense seeds.