23-mm iodine-125 plaque for uveal melanoma: benefit of vitrectomy and silicone oil on visual acuity.

PURPOSE: To review outcomes in mostly large uveal melanoma treated with a 23-mm-diameter iodine-125 plaque, the largest size available at our center, and the influence of vitrectomy and silicone oil 1000 centistokes for radiation attenuation. METHODS: A one-to-one matched case-control comparison was performed. Case patients were treated with a 23-mm-diameter iodine-125 plaque and vitrectomy with silicone oil 1000-cSt placement. Control cases, treated with 23-mm plaque alone, were matched to cases with respect to tumor size and distance from tumor apex to optic nerve and fovea. Postoperative complications, visual acuity and metastasis were reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty case patients with uveal melanoma treated with a 23-mm plaque were identified. The final logMAR vision was 0.83 in case patients and 2.06 in control patients (P = 0.0064); the change from pre-treatment to last follow-up logMAR vision was 0.70 in cases and 1.62 in controls (P = 0.019). Of good vision outcomes, 65 % of cases and 25 % of controls achieved vision ≥20/200 (P = 0.025). Of poor vision outcomes, 35 % of cases and 80 % of controls achieved vision <20/200 (P = 0.0053), and 5 % of cases and 35 % of controls achieved "light perception" or "no light perception" vision (P = 0.044). Thirty-nine of the 40 eyes (98 %) achieved local tumor control. Metastasis occurred in 15 % of cases and 45 % of controls (P = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: Iodine-125 brachytherapy for mostly large uveal melanoma is effective in achieving local tumor control. Furthermore, combining brachytherapy with vitrectomy and silicone oil 1000-cSt for radiation attenuation significantly improves vision over the use of plaque alone.

Lack of benefit of pelvic radiation in prostate cancer patients with a high risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes treated with high-dose radiation.

PURPOSE: The use of pelvic radiation for patients with a high risk of lymph node (LN) metastasis (>15%) remains controversial. We reviewed the data at three institutions treating patients with a combination of external-beam radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy to address the prognostic implications of the use of the Roach formula and the benefit of pelvic treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1986 to 2003, 1,491 patients were treated with external-beam radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy. The Roach formula [2/3 prostate-specific antigen + (Gleason score -6) x 10] could be calculated for 1,357 patients. Group I consisted of patients having a risk of positive LN < or = 15% (n = 761), Group II had a risk >15% and < or = 30% (n = 422), and Group III had a risk of LN disease >30% (n = 174). A >15% risk of having positive LN was found in 596 patients and was used to determine the benefit of pelvic radiation. The pelvis was treated at two of the cancer centers (n = 312), whereas at the third center (n = 284) radiation therapy was delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicles alone. Average biologic effective dose was > or = 100 Gy (alphabeta = 1.2). Biochemical failure was as per the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition. Statistics included the log-rank test as well as Cox univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: For all 596 patients with a positive LN risk >15%, median follow-up was 4.3 years, with a mean of 4.8 years. For all cases, median follow-up was 4 years and mean follow-up was 4.4 years. Five-year results for the three groups based on their risk of positive LN were significantly different in terms of biochemical failure (p < 0.001), clinical control (p < 0.001), disease-free survival excluding biochemical failure (p < 0.001), cause-specific survival (p < 0.001), and overall survival (p < 0.001). For all patients with a risk of positive LN >15% (n = 596), Group II (>15-30% risk), or Group III (>30% risk), no benefit was seen in the 5-year rates of clinical failure, cause-specific survival, or overall survival with pelvic radiation. In the Cox multivariate analysis for cause-specific survival, Gleason score (p = 0.009, hazard ratio [HR] 3.1), T stage (p = 0.03, HR 1.8), and year of treatment (p = 0.05, HR 1.1) were significant. A log-rank test for cause-specific survival for all patients (n = 577) by the use of pelvic radiation was not significant (p = 0.99) accounting for high-dose-rate brachytherapy dose, neoadjuvant hormones, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, T stage, and year of treatment as covariates. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Roach formula to stratify patients for clinical and biochemical outcomes is excellent. Pelvic radiation added to high prostate radiation doses did not show a clinical benefit for patients at a high risk of pelvic LN disease (>15%) selected using the Roach formula.

Prostate-specific antigen bounce after high-dose-rate monotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To characterize the magnitude and kinetics of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) bounces after high-dose-rate (HDR) monotherapy and determine relationships between certain clinical factors and PSA bounce. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Longitudinal PSA data and various clinical parameters were examined in 157 consecutive patients treated with HDR monotherapy between 1996 and 2005. We used the following definition for PSA bounce: rise in PSA ≥threshold, after which it returns to the prior level or lower. Prostate-specific antigen failure was defined per the Phoenix definition (nadir +2 ng/mL). RESULTS: A PSA bounce was noted in 67 patients (43%). The number of bounces per patient was 1 in 45 cases (67%), 2 in 19 (28%), 3 in 2 (3%), 4 in 0, and 5 in 1 (1%). The median time to maximum PSA bounce was 1.3 years, its median magnitude was 0.7, and its median duration was 0.75 years. Three patients (2%) were noted to have PSA failure. None of the 3 patients who experienced biochemical failure exhibited PSA bounce. In the fully adjusted model for predicting each bounce, patients aged <55 years had a statistically significant higher likelihood of experiencing a bounce (odds ratio 2.22, 95% confidence interval 1.38-3.57, P=.001). There was also a statistically significant higher probability of experiencing a bounce for every unit decrease in Gleason score (odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.04, P=.045). CONCLUSIONS: A PSA bounce occurs in a significant percentage of patients treated with HDR monotherapy, with magnitudes varying from <1 in 28% of cases to ≥1 in 15%. The median duration of bounce is <1 year. More bounces were identified in patients with lower Gleason score and age <55 years. Further investigation using a model to correlate magnitude and frequency of bounces with clinical variables are under way.

High-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: an excellent accelerated-hypofractionated treatment for favorable prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The radiobiology of prostate cancer appears to favor large fractions. Accelerated hypofractionation treatments may therefore be used to improve the therapeutic ratio, particularly when the doses to rectum and bladder are kept below the prostate dose. The 5-year experience at William Beaumont Hospital (WBH) and the California Endocurietherapy Center (CET) with accelerated-hypofractionated high-dose-rate (HDR) monotherapy in favorable prostate cancer is presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 2004, 454 patients were treated with brachytherapy of which 248 treated with HDR and 206 patients treated with low-dose-rate Palladium (LDR-Pd¹°³). The WBH-HDR dose was 38 Gy, in 4 fractions, twice a day. The CET-HDR dose was 42 Gy in 6 fractions in 2 separate implants 1 week apart. The WBH-LDR dose was 120 Gy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 4.8 years. The 5-year Phoenix biochemical control (BC) was 89%, 91%, and 88% for WBH-LDR, WBH- HDR, and CET-HDR, respectively. The majority of complications were grade 1. HDR was associated with less acute grade 1 to 3 dysuria 60% versus 39%, (P < 0.001), urinary frequency/urgency 90% to58% (P < 0.001), and rectal pain 17% to 6.5% (P < 0.001). Long-term urinary frequency/urgency 54% versus 43%, (P = 0.03) and dysuria 22% versus 15% were less with HDR. The 5-year actuarial impotence rate was 30% for LDR and 20% for HDR (P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Although the same 5-year BC rates were achieved with HDR (248 patients) and LDR (206 patients) monotherapy, HDR brachytherapy was associated with less acute and chronic genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities. As another accepted standard of care, accelerated hypofractionated HDR monotherapy is target specific and efficient radiobiologically than EBRT which has many smaller doses per fraction. It could be considered today as the best option in accelerated hypofractionated prostate cancer treatment.

Matched-pair analysis of prostate cancer patients with a high risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes treated with and without pelvic RT and high-dose radiation using high dose rate brachytherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Adding pelvic radiation to high-dose prostate radiation for prostate cancer patients with a >15% risk of positive lymph nodes (LN) is controversial. We performed a matched-pair analysis of patients treated at 2 institutions to assess the impact of pelvic radiotherapy (P-RT). METHODS: From January 1993 to March 2003, 2 institutions treated 1432 prostate cancer patients with combined external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Those receiving EBRT were treated either to the prostate and seminal vesicles alone or to the entire pelvis (46 Gy). In all cases, prostate dose (EBRT and HDR) resulted in an average BED >100 Gy (alpha/beta = 1.2). There were 755 cases identified as having a pelvic LN risk >15% using the Roach formula. Of these, 255 cases were treated without pelvic RT and randomly matched by Gleason score, T stage, and pretreatment PSA to 500 cases treated with pelvic RT, resulting in 250 pairs (1:1). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 4.0 years (P = 0.7). The 4-year prostate biochemical failure (22% versus 14%, P = 0.12), distant metastasis (9% versus 4%, P = 0.6), event-free survival (72% versus 78%, P = 0.3), prostate cancer death rate (4% versus 2%, P = 0.9), and overall survival (89% versus 88%, P = 0.7) were not significantly different for patients treated with and without P-RT. Analysis with and without androgen deprivation therapy showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Improved biochemical, clinical, or survival outcomes were not observed for prostate cancer patients at risk for positive pelvic LN >15% when treated with high-dose EBRT and HDR brachytherapy to the prostate with or without pelvic radiation.