RESUMO
Purpose: To analyze the oncological outcome in elderly (>70 years) prostate cancer after high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDB) boost. Materials/methods: In this retrospective study, patients with intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by HDB boost with/without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The impact of age (≤70y vs. > 70y) was investigated. Oncological outcome focused on biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cause-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Late genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities were investigated. Results: From 07/08 to 01/22, 518 pts received a HDB boost, and 380 were analyzed (≤70y:177pts [46.6%] vs. > 70y:203pts [53.4%]). Regarding NCCN classification, 98 pts (≤70y: 53pts; >70y: 45pts; p = 0.107) and 282 pts (≤70y: 124pts; >70y: 158pts; p = NS) were IR and HR pts respectively. Median EBRT dose was 46 Gy [37.5-46] in 23 fractions [14-25]. HDB boost delivered a single fraction of 14/15 Gy (79%). ADT was used in 302 pts (≤70y: 130pts; >70y: 172pts; p = 0.01). With MFU of 72.6 months [67-83] for the whole cohort, 5-y bRFS, 5-y CSS and 5-y OS were 88% [85-92], 99% [97-100] and 94% [92-97] respectively; there was no statistical difference between the two age groups except for 5-y CSS (p = 0.05). Late GU and GI toxicity rates were 32.4% (G ≥ 3 7.3%) and 10.1% (no G3) respectively. Conclusions: For IR and HR prostate cancers, HDB boost leads to high rates of disease control with few late G ≥ 3 GU/GI toxicities. For elderly pts, HDB boost remains warranted mainly in HR pts, while competing comorbidity factors influence OS.
RESUMO
Purpose: To analyze the literature that addresses radiation therapy for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (PC) in the elderly. Patients and methods: A PubMed literature search was conducted including articles from 01/01/2000 to 30/06/21, with the following keywords: PC, radiotherapy/brachytherapy and elderly. The analysis mainly focused on the issue of under-treatment in the elderly and the benefit/risk balance of irradiation. Results: Of the 176 references analyzed, 24 matched the selection criteria. The definition of "elderly patient" varied from 70 to 80 years. The analysis was impacted by the inhomogeneous primary end points used in each cohort. Age was often an obstacle to radical treatment, with a subsequent risk of under-treatment, particularly in patients with a poorer prognosis. However, comparable elderly oncological outcomes were compared to younger patients, both with external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with brachytherapy boost. Late toxicity rates are low and most often comparable to younger populations. However, a urinary over- toxicity was observed in the super-elderly (>80 years) after brachytherapy boost. The use of ADT should be considered in light of comorbidities, and may even be deleterious in some patients. Conclusion: Due to the increase in life expectancy, the management of PC in the elderly is a challenge for patients, clinicians and health insurance payers. Except for unfit men, elderly patients remain candidates for optimal curative treatment (i.e. regardless of age) after oncogeriatric assessment. More solid data from prospective trials conducted specially in this population will provide better guidance in our daily clinical practice.
