The addition of low-dose-rate brachytherapy and androgen-deprivation therapy decreases biochemical failure and prostate cancer death compared with dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine whether the addition of low-dose-rate brachytherapy or androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves clinical outcome in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HiRPCa) who received dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Between 1995 and 2010, 958 patients with HiRPCa were treated at Schiffler Cancer Center (n = 484) or at the University of Michigan (n = 474) by receiving either dose-escalated external-beam RT (EBRT) (n = 510; minimum prescription dose, 75 grays [Gy]; median dose, 78 Gy) or combined-modality RT (CMRT) consisting of (103) Pd implants (n = 369) or (125) I implants (n = 79) both with pelvic irradiation (median prescription dose, 45 Gy). The cumulative incidences of biochemical failure (BF) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and Fine and Gray regression analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 63.2 months (interquartile range, 35.4-99.0 months), and 250 patients were followed for >8 years. Compared with CMRT, patients who received EBRT had higher prostate-specific antigen levels, higher tumor classification, lower Gleason sum, and more frequent receipt of ADT for a longer duration. The 8-year incidence BF and PCSM among patients who received EBRT was 40% (standard error, 38%-44%) and 13% (standard error, 11%-15%) compared with 14% (standard error, 12%-16%; P < .0001) and 7% (standard error 6%-9%; P = .003) among patients who received CMRT. On multivariate analysis, the hazard ratios (HRs) for BF and PCSM were 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.52; P < .0001) and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23-0.75; P < .003), favoring CMRT. Increasing duration of ADT predicted decreased BF (P = .04) and PCSM (P = .001), which was greatest with long-term ADT (BF: HR, 0.33; P < .0001; 95% CI, 0.21-0.52; PCSM: HR, 0.30; P = .001; 95% CI, 0.15-0.6) even in the subgroup that received CMRT. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective comparison, both low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost and ADT were associated with decreased risks of BF and PCSM compared with EBRT.

Combination therapy improves prostate cancer survival for patients with potentially lethal prostate cancer: The impact of Gleason pattern 5.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) prostate cancer after either external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or the combination of EBRT with low-dose rate brachytherapy boost (combo). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1998 and 2008, 467 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk prostate cancer were treated with EBRT (n = 326) or combo (low-dose rate to 90-108 Gy using I-125 followed by EBRT) (n = 141). Freedom from biochemical failure, freedom from metastasis (FFM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: Combo patients were younger (66 vs. 72 years, p < 0.001) and had fewer comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index 3.7 vs. 4.4, p < 0.001). EBRT patients had higher tumor stages (T3-4: 30% vs. 21%, p = 0.03) and lower Gleason scores (8-10: 61% vs. 75%, p = 0.01). Androgen deprivation therapy use was similar between cohorts (85% vs. 87%, p = 0.5), but EBRT patients had longer androgen deprivation therapy use (median 14 vs. 12 months, p = 0.05). GP5 predicted worse FFM (p < 0.001, hazard ratio [HR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.8-6.2]) and CSS (p < 0.001, HR 5.9, 95% CI 2.7-12.9) for the EBRT group, but not for the combo group (p = 0.86, HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.1-2.4 for metastasis and p = 0.5, HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.33-8.0 for CSS). In those with GP5 (n = 143), combo was associated with improved outcomes in all endpoints. On univariate analysis, 5-year outcomes for combo vs. EBRT were as follows: freedom from biochemical failure 89% vs. 65%, FFM 89% vs. 67%, CSS 93% vs. 78%, and overall survival 88% vs. 67% (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Combo was associated with improved outcomes for men with GP5 prostate cancer. This highlights the importance of local therapy, especially in patients with the highest pathologic grade disease.

Percentage of cancer volume in biopsy cores is prognostic for prostate cancer death and overall survival in patients treated with dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the prognostic utility of the percentage of cancer volume (PCV) in needle biopsy specimens for prostate cancer patients treated with dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The outcomes were analyzed for 599 men treated for localized prostate cancer with external beam radiotherapy to a minimal planning target volume dose of 75 Gy (range, 75-79.2). We assessed the effect of PCV and the pretreatment and treatment-related factors on the freedom from biochemical failure, freedom from metastasis, cause-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: The median number of biopsy cores was 7 (interquartile range, 6-12), median PCV was 10% (interquartile range, 2.5-25%), and median follow-up was 62 months. The PCV correlated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group and individual risk features, including T stage, prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and percentage of positive biopsy cores. On log-rank analysis, the PCV stratified by quartile was prognostic for all endpoints, including overall survival. In addition, the PCV was a stronger prognostic factor than the percentage of positive biopsy cores when the two metrics were analyzed together. On multivariate analysis, the PCV predicted a worse outcome for all endpoints, including freedom from biochemical failure, (hazard ratio, 1.9; p = .0035), freedom from metastasis (hazard ratio, 1.7, p = .09), cause-specific survival (hazard ratio, 3.9, p = .014), and overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.8, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: For patients treated with dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy, the volume of cancer in the biopsy specimen adds prognostic value for clinically relevant endpoints, particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients. Although the PCV determination is more arduous than the percentage of positive biopsy cores, it provides superior risk stratification.