Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Very few comparative studies to date evaluate the results of treatment options for prostate cancer using the most sensitive measurement tools. PSA has been identified as the most sensitive tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. To date, comprehensive unbiased reviews of all the current literature are limited for prostate cancer. This is the first large scale comprehensive review of the literature comparing risk stratified patients by treatment option and with long-term follow-up. The results of the studies are weighted, respecting the impact of larger studies on overall results. The study identified a lack of uniformity in reporting results amongst institutions and centres. A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18,000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Interstitial implant alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a survey of practice patterns in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study is aimed at understanding and defining the current patterns of care with respect to prostate brachytherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localized disease in the combined academic and community setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A nomogram-based survey was developed at the Seattle Prostate Institute defining the accepted criteria for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients were defined as having intermediate-risk prostate cancer if they met one of the following criteria: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/dL, Gleason score (GS) > or = 7, or cT2b or cT2c disease. Additional potential predictive factors including perineural invasion (PNI), GS 3+4 vs. 4+3, and high-volume disease were included. RESULTS: In the absence of PNI, all of those surveyed would perform monotherapy for intermediate-risk patients, GS 7 (3+4) or PSA 10-20, with cT1c and <30% cores +. Up to 80% would perform monotherapy for patients with cT1c, GS 7 (4+3), and <30% cores +. Eighty to 90% of physicians would perform an implant alone with cT2a and either a PSA of 10-20 or GS of 7 (3+4) and <30% cores +. Fifty to 60% of those surveyed stated that they would treat a patient with cT2b disease, GS 7 (3+4), or PSA 11-20, with less than two-thirds of the biopsy cores positive in the absence of PNI. CONCLUSIONS: This Patterns of Care (POC) study reveals that certain subsets of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients are considered appropriate candidates for an interstitial implant alone.

Long-term cosmesis and toxicity following 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in the delivery of accelerated partial breast irradiation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate cosmesis and toxicity in early-stage breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant 3D-CRT who received accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From November 2003 to June 2006, 60 breasts on 59 patients were treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) APBI. Patients with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer were eligible if a <3-cm tumor was resected with negative surgical margins, and axillary evaluation documented 0-3 positive nodes. The mean age was 58.7 years (range, 31-88 years). Target volume and critical structure definitions, as well as dose delivery guidelines, were consistent across both institutions. Treatment was twice daily for 5 consecutive days with 3.85 Gy per fraction to 38.5 Gy. Clinical follow-up was conducted at regular intervals that included history, physical exam, and mammography. The overall cosmesis was graded using the Harvard scale and toxicity was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (v4.0), including hyperpigmentation, edema, telangiectasia, mastalgia, surgical defect, fibrosis, and fat necrosis. Dose-volume histogram and treatment parameters were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 44.3 months (range, 2-94 months), there were 4 cases of grade 3-4 toxicity (7%): 1 patient with mastalgia; 1 patient with mastalgia and fat necrosis; 1 patient with telangiectasia; and 1 patient with fibrosis. There was no statistical correlate between dosimetric parameters and cosmetic outcome. Overall cosmetic outcome was good or excellent in 58 breasts (95%) and "fair to poor" in 3 (5%). There were no local-regional failures; 3 patients failed distantly (5%). CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated partial breast irradiation using 3D-CRT is safe and the risk of serious chronic side effect is low and acceptable.

A multi-institutional study of feasibility, implementation, and early clinical results with noninvasive breast brachytherapy for tumor bed boost.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility, implementation, and early results of noninvasive breast brachytherapy (NIBB) for tumor bed boost with whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: NIBB is a commercially available (AccuBoost, Billerica, MA) mammography-based, brachytherapy system in which the treatment applicators are centered on the planning target volume (PTV) to direct (192)Ir emissions along orthogonal axes. A privacy-encrypted online data registry collected information from 8 independent academic and community-based institutions. Data were from 146 consecutive women with early-stage breast cancer after lumpectomy and WBRT receiving boost with NIBB between July 2007 and March 2010. Toxicity and cosmesis were graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (v. 3.0) and the Harvard scale. Median follow-up was 6 months (1-39 months). RESULTS: Grade 1-2 skin toxicity was observed in 64%, 48%, and 21% during the acute (1-3 weeks), intermediate (4-26 weeks), and late-intermediate (>26 weeks) periods. There was no Grade 4 toxicity. At 6 months, for the entire cohort, cosmesis was excellent/good in 62%/38%. The subset receiving NIBB before WBRT had cosmetic scores of 32% and 63%, whereas during WBRT, 58% and 37% were rated as excellent and good, respectively. Breast compression was scored as "uncomfortable" in 12%, 29%, and 59% when NIBB was delivered before, during, or after WBRT. For each patient, the fraction-to-fraction variability in PTV was low. Skin flash was associated with a higher proportion of excellent cosmesis (58% vs. 42%) relative to having the applicator all within breast tissue. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that NIBB is feasible and can be consistently implemented in a broad array of practice settings. Preliminary evaluation suggests that NIBB is associated with acceptably mild normal tissue toxicity and favorable early cosmesis. The application of NIBB before WBRT may be associated with better patient tolerance at the expense of less favorable cosmetic outcome.

Association between maximal skin dose and breast brachytherapy outcome: a proposal for more rigorous dosimetric constraints.

PURPOSE: Multiple investigations have used the skin distance as a surrogate for the skin dose and have shown that distances <6 mm have been associated with late toxicity after MammoSite brachytherapy. No publications have yet described the relationship between the actual maximal skin dose and the outcome. The present study analyzed the maximal skin dose delivered and the occurrence of late toxicity in a large cohort of patients with prolonged follow-up. METHODS: A total of 96 patients treated with breast brachytherapy between 2000 and 2007 for whom complete planning and follow-up data were available were included in the present analysis. The median follow-up was 48 months (range, 24-111). Of the 96 patients, 40 were treated with multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy and 56 with MammoSite. A multivariate statistical analysis was performed to determine the relationship between several dosimetric parameters and patient outcome. RESULTS: The treatment was well tolerated, with 98% of patients experiencing good to excellent cosmesis. Significant late toxicity was uncommon. The maximal dose delivered to the skin was significantly associated with the incidence of any degree of telangiectasia (p = .009) and moderate to severe fibrosis (p = .010). The incidence of late toxicity was significantly increased when the dose to the skin was >4.05 Gy/fraction. CONCLUSION: The initial skin dose recommendations have been based on safe use and the avoidance of significant toxicity. The results from the present study have suggested that patients might further benefit if more rigorous constraints were applied and if the skin dose were limited to 120% of the prescription dose.