Rates of rectal toxicity in patients treated with high dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy compared to dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Using a prospectively collected institutional database, we compared rectal toxicity following high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as monotherapy relative to dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 2683 patients treated with HDR or EBRT between 1994 and 2017 were included. HDR fractionation was 38 Gy/4 fractions (n = 321), 24 Gy/2 (n = 96), or 27 Gy/2 (n = 128). EBRT patients received a median dose of 75.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions [range 70.2-82.8 Gy], using either 3D conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). EBRT patients underwent 3D image guidance via an off-line adaptive process. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.5 years (7.4 years for EBRT and 7.9 years for HDR). 545 patients (20.3%) received HDR brachytherapy and 2138 (79.7%) EBRT. 69.1% of EBRT patients received IMRT. Compared to EBRT, HDR was associated with decreased rates of acute grade ≥2 diarrhea (0.7% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), rectal pain/tenesmus (0.6% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001), and rectal bleeding (0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). Rates of chronic grade ≥2 rectal bleeding (1.3% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) and radiation proctitis (0.9% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.001) favored HDR over EBRT. Rates of any chronic rectal toxicity grade ≥2 were 2.4% vs. 10.5% (p < 0.001) for HDR versus EBRT, respectively. In those treated with IMRT, acute and chronic rates of any grade ≥2 GI toxicity were significantly reduced but remained significantly greater than those treated with HDR. CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy, HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective strategy for reducing rectal toxicity.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To review and analyze the published data on high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: A literature search and a systematic review of the high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (monotherapy) prostate literature were performed on PubMed using "high-dose-rate, brachytherapy, prostate, monotherapy" as search terms. More than 80 articles and abstracts published between 1990 and 2013 were identified. Data tables were generated and summary descriptions created. Commentary and opinion was formulated through discussion and consensus based on the critical review of the literature and the author's combined personal experience and knowledge. RESULTS: Thirteen articles reported clinical outcome and toxicity with followup ranging from 1.5 to 8.0 years. Results were available for all risk groups. A variety of dose and fractionation schedules were described. Prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival ranged from 79% to 100% and local control from 97% to 100%. The toxicity rates were low. Genitourinary toxicity, mainly frequency/urgency, was 0-16% (Grade 3). Gastrointestinal toxicity was 0-2% (Grade 3). Erectile function preservation was 67-89%. The radiobiological, clinical, and technical features of HDR brachytherapy were reviewed and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently high local tumor control and low complications rates are reported with HDR monotherapy. It provides reproducible high-quality dosimetry, it has an advantage from a radiobiology perspective, and it has a good radiation safety profile. HDR brachytherapy is a safe and effective local treatment modality for prostate cancer.

Comparison of dose-escalated, image-guided radiotherapy vs. dose-escalated, high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in a modern cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: We compared outcomes in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with dose-escalated adaptive image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) or dose-escalated high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-B). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria were treated with either CT-based off-line adaptive IGRT (n = 734) or HDR-B (n = 282). IGRT was delivered with 3D-conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a median dose of 77.4 Gy. For HDR-B, the whole pelvis received a median 46 Gy, and the prostate 2 implants of 9.5 Gy (n = 71), 10.5 Gy (n = 155), or 11.5 Gy (n = 56). RESULTS: Median followup was 3.7 years for IGRT and 8.0 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). Eight-year biochemical control was 86% for IGRT and 91% for HDR-B (p = 0.22), disease-free survival 67% for IGRT and 79% for HDR-B (p = 0.006), and overall survival 75% for IGRT and 86% for HDR-B (p = 0.009). Cause-specific survival (8-year, 100% vs. 99%), freedom from distant metastases (98% vs. 97%), and freedom from local recurrence (98% vs. 98%) did not differ (p > 0.50 each). A worse prognosis group was defined by percent positive prostate biopsy cores >50%, perineural invasion, or stage T2b-c, encompassing 260 (35%) IGRT and 171 (61%) HDR-B patients. These patients evidenced a 5-year biochemical control of 96% for HDR-B and 87% for IGRT (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Dose-escalated IGRT and HDR-B both yield excellent clinical outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Improved biochemical control with HDR-B for patients with worse pretreatment characteristics suggests that a subgroup of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients may benefit from dual-modality treatment.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy delivered in two fractions within one day for favorable/intermediate-risk prostate cancer: preliminary toxicity data.

PURPOSE: To report the toxicity profile of high-dose-rate (HDR)-brachytherapy (BT) as monotherapy in a Human Investigation Committee-approved study consisting of a single implant and two fractions (12 Gy × 2) for a total dose of 24 Gy, delivered within 1 day. The dose was subsequently increased to 27 Gy (13.5 Gy × 2) delivered in 1 day. We report the acute and early chronic genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 173 patients were treated between December 2005 and July 2010. However, only the first 100 were part of the IRB-approved study and out of these, only 94 had a minimal follow-up of 6 months, representing the study population for this preliminary report. All patients had clinical Stage T2b or less (American Joint Committee on Cancer, 5th edition), Gleason score 6-7 (3+4), and prostate-specific antigen level of ≤12 ng/mL. Ultrasound-guided HDR-BT with real-time dosimetry was used. The prescription dose was 24 Gy for the first 50 patients and 27 Gy thereafter. The dosimetric goals and constraints were the same for the two dose groups. Toxicity was scored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. The highest toxicity scores encountered at any point during follow-up are reported. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 17 months (range, 6-40.5). Most patients had Grade 0-1 acute toxicity. The Grade 2 acute genitourinary toxicity was mainly frequency/urgency (13%), dysuria (5%), hematuria, and dribbling/hesitancy (2%). None of the patients required a Foley catheter at any time; however, 8% of the patients experienced transient Grade 1 diarrhea. No other acute gastrointestinal toxicities were found. The most common chronic toxicity was Grade 2 urinary frequency/urgency in 16% of patients followed by dysuria in 4% of patients; 2 patients had Grade 2 rectal bleeding and 1 had Grade 4, requiring laser treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable-risk prostate cancer patients treated with a single implant HDR-BT to 24-27 Gy in two fractions within 1 day have excellent tolerance with minimal acute and chronic toxicity. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm these encouraging early results.

Prognostic significance of neuroendocrine differentiation in patients with Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer treated with primary radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic significance of neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer treated with primary radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Chromogranin A (CgA) staining was performed and overseen by a single pathologist on core biopsies from 176 patients from the William Beaumont prostate cancer database. A total of 143 had evaluable biopsy material. Staining was quantified as 0%, <1%, 1-10%, or >10% of tumor cells. Patients received external beam RT alone or together with high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates determined if the presence/frequency of neuroendocrine cells correlated with clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5.5 years. Forty patients (28%) had at least focal positive CgA staining (<1% n = 21, 1-10% n = 11, >10% n = 8). No significant differences existed between patients with or without staining in terms of age, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, tumor stage, hormone therapy administration, % biopsy core involvement, mean Gleason score, or RT dose/modality. CgA staining concentration independently predicted for biochemical and clinical failure, distant metastases (DM), and cause-specific survival (CSS). For patients with <1% vs. >1% staining, 10-year DM rates were 13.4% vs. 55.3%, respectively (p = 0.001), and CSS was 91.7% vs. 58.9% (p < 0.001). As a continuous variable, increasing CgA staining concentration predicted for inferior rates of DM, CSS, biochemical control, and any clinical failure. No differences in outcomes were appreciated for patients with 0% vs. <1% NED. CONCLUSIONS: For Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer, >1% NED is associated with inferior clinical outcomes for patients treated with radiotherapy. This relates most directly to an increase in distant disease failure.

High-dose-rate monotherapy: safe and effective brachytherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy used as the only treatment (monotherapy) for early prostate cancer is consistent with current concepts in prostate radiobiology, and the dose is reliably delivered in a prospectively defined anatomic distribution that meets all the requirements for safe and effective therapy. We report the disease control and toxicity of HDR monotherapy from California Endocurietherapy (CET) and William Beaumont Hospital (WBH) in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: There were 298 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with HDR monotherapy between 1996 and 2005. Two biologically equivalent hypofractionation protocols were used. At CET the dose was 42 Gy in six fractions (two implantations 1 week apart) delivered to a computed tomography-defined planning treatment volume. At WBH the dose was 38 Gy in four fractions (one implantation) based on intraoperative transrectal ultrasound real-time treatment planning. The bladder, urethral, and rectal dose constraints were similar. Toxicity was scored with the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 5.2 years. The median age of the patients was 63 years, and the median value of the pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 6.0 ng/mL. The 8-year results were 99% local control, 97% biochemical control (nadir +2), 99% distant metastasis-free survival, 99% cause-specific survival, and 95% overall survival. Toxicity was scored per event, meaning that an individual patient with more than one symptom was represented repeatedly in the morbidity data table. Genitourinary toxicity consisted of 10% transient Grade 2 urinary frequency or urgency and 3% Grade 3 episode of urinary retention. Gastrointestinal toxicity was <1%. CONCLUSIONS: High disease control rates and low morbidity demonstrate that HDR monotherapy is safe and effective for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Accelerated partial breast irradiation for pure ductal carcinoma in situ.

PURPOSE: To report outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving therapy using accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From March 2001 to February 2009, 53 patients with Stage 0 breast cancer were treated with breast conserving surgery and adjuvant APBI. Median age was 62 years. All patients underwent excision with margins negative by ≥1 mm before adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). A total of 39 MammoSite brachytherapy (MS) patients and 14 three-dimensional conformal external beam RT (3DCRT) patients were treated to the lumpectomy bed alone with 34 Gy and 38.5 Gy, respectively. Of the DCIS cases, 94% were mammographically detected. All patients with calcifications had either specimen radiography or postsurgical mammography confirmation of clearance. Median tumor size was 6 mm, and median margin distance was 5 mm. There were no statistically significant differences according to APBI method for race/ethnicity, tumor detection method, tumor grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status, or use of tamoxifen (p = NS). Recurrence and survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cosmesis was scored by the Harvard criteria. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 3.6 years (range, 0.4-6.3 years), the overall and cause-specific survival rates were 98% and 100%, respectively. Three-year actuarial ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence was 2%. One failure was observed at the resection bed 11 months post-RT. No other elsewhere breast failures, regional recurrences, or distant metastases were noted. Cosmesis was excellent or good in 92.4% of cases, with no statistically significant differences according to the APBI method (92.3% with MammoSite and 92.8% with 3DCRT; p = 0.649). CONCLUSIONS: APBI as part of breast-conserving therapy for pure DCIS was associated with excellent local control and survival rates, with the vast majority of patients having good to excellent cosmesis. This finding supports the recent analysis by the American Society of Breast Surgeons on a subset of DCIS patients treated efficaciously with APBI.

Lack of benefit for the addition of androgen deprivation therapy to dose-escalated radiotherapy in the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Assessment of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) benefits for prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1991 to 2004, 1,044 patients with intermediate- (n = 782) or high-risk (n = 262) prostate cancer were treated with dose-escalated RT at William Beaumont Hospital. Patients received external-beam RT (EBRT) alone, brachytherapy (high or low dose rate), or high dose rate brachytherapy plus pelvic EBRT. Intermediate-risk patients had Gleason score 7, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10.0-19.9 ng/mL, or Stage T2b-T2c. High-risk patients had Gleason score 8-10, PSA ≥20, or Stage T3. Patients were additionally divided specifically by Gleason score, presence of palpable disease, and PSA level to further define subgroups benefitting from ADT. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 5 years; 420 patients received ADT + dose-escalated RT, and 624 received dose-escalated RT alone. For all patients, no advantages in any clinical endpoints at 8 years were associated with ADT administration. No differences in any endpoints were associated with ADT administration based on intermediate- vs. high-risk group or RT modality when analyzed separately. Patients with palpable disease plus Gleason ≥8 demonstrated improved clinical failure rates and a trend toward improved survival with ADT. Intermediate-risk patients treated with brachytherapy alone had improved biochemical control when ADT was given. CONCLUSION: Benefits of ADT in the setting of dose-escalated RT remain poorly defined. This question must continue to be addressed in prospective study.

Adaptive radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Adaptive radiotherapy has been introduced to manage an individual's treatment by, including patient-specific treatment variation identified and quantified during the course of radiotherapy in the treatment planning and delivering optimization. Early studies have demonstrated that this technique could significantly improve the therapeutic ratio by safely reducing the large target margin that has to be used in conventional radiotherapy for prostate cancer treatment. Clinical application of off-line image-guided adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer has demonstrated encouraging clinical outcome. Long-term clinical follow-up has shown significant improvement in terms of tumor control and low toxicity profile, emphasizing the beneficial effect of image-guidance and adaptive treatment. Continuous development in adaptive radiotherapy has made possible additional increases in target dose by further reducing target margin when using online image-guided adaptive intensity-modulated radiation therapy. However, clinical implementation of new techniques should be explored cautiously and should include a comprehensive management strategy to address uncertainties in target definition and delineation in the preclinical implementation studies.

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.

PSA bounce after prostate brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of PSA bounce (PB) on biochemical failure (BF) and clinical failure (CF) in brachytherapy patients treated with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation (AD). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 1987 to 2003, 691 patients with clinical stage T1-T3N0M0 prostate cancer were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost (n=407), HDR brachytherapy alone (n=93), or permanent seed implant (n=191). Three hundred seventeen patients (46%) received neoadjuvant/adjuvant AD with RT. BF was scored using 3 definitions (ASTRO--3 rises, nadir+2 ng/ml, and threshold 3 ng/ml) based on current and absolute nadir (AN) methodologies. PB was defined as any increase in PSA followed by a decrease to the prior baseline or lower. The median followup was 4.0 years. RESULTS: Forty-six patients (7%) experienced CF at 5 years. PB of >or=0.1, >or=1.0, and >or=2.0 ng/ml at any time after RT occurred in 330 (48%), 60 (9%), and 22 patients (3%) respectively. The use of an AN definition reduced the likelihood of scoring PB as BF across all levels. The patients receiving AD experienced significantly longer bounce duration. Bounce <1.0 ng/ml showed no association with CF. For bounce >or=1.0 ng/ml, 10% demonstrated CF vs. 6% without bounce of this amplitude (p=0.27). Bounces >or=1.0 ng/ml were more likely to be scored as BFs for definitions based on current nadir (3 rises: 20% vs. 13%, nadir+2: 43% vs. 11%, 3 at/after nadir: 57% vs. 12%) than those based on AN (3 rises: 8% vs. 10%, nadir+2: 18% vs. 11%, 3 at/after nadir: 13% vs. 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Bounces >or=1.0 ng/ml are rare after brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant AD, occurring in less than 10% of patients. Low PBs have little impact on BF, but as PB amplitude increases, the BF rate increases. BF definitions based on AN are less sensitive to PB after brachytherapy.

Analysis of treatment efficacy, cosmesis, and toxicity using the MammoSite breast brachytherapy catheter to deliver accelerated partial-breast irradiation: the william beaumont hospital experience.

PURPOSE: To review our institution's experience of treating patients with the MammoSite (Cytyc Corp., Marlborough, MA) breast brachytherapy catheter to deliver accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI), for determining short-term treatment efficacy, cosmesis, and toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January 2000 to April 2006, 80 patients treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) received adjuvant radiation using the MammoSite (34 Gy in 3.4-Gy fractions prescribed to 1.0 cm from the balloon surface). Twenty-three patients (29%) had Stage 0 breast cancer, 46 (57%) had Stage I breast cancer, and 11 (14%) had Stage II breast cancer. The median follow-up was 22.1 months. RESULTS: Two ipsilateral breast-tumor recurrences (IBTRs) (2.5%) developed for a 3-year actuarial rate of 2.9% (no regional failures were observed). On molecular-based clonality assay evaluation, both recurrences were clonally related. Younger age at diagnosis was the only variable associated with IBTR (continuous variable, p = 0.044; categorical variable [<55 years vs. >/=55 years], p = 0.012). The percentages of patients with good/excellent cosmetic results at 12 and 36 months were 96.9% and 88.2%, respectively (p = NS). Patients with applicator-to-skin spacing <7 mm and those who received adjuvant systemic chemotherapy exhibited lower rates of good/excellent cosmetic results, though the association was not statistically significant. The overall incidence of symptomatic seromas and any seromas was 10% and 45%, respectively. The overall incidence of fat necrosis and infections was 8.8% and 11.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early-stage breast-cancer patients treated with adjuvant APBI using the MammoSite catheter exhibited a 3-year treatment efficacy, cosmesis, and toxicity similar to those observed with other forms of interstitial APBI at this length of follow-up.

Clinicopathologic analysis of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: should the clinical target volume be expanded posterolaterally to account for microscopic extension?

PURPOSE: We performed a complete pathologic analysis examining extracapsular extension (ECE) and microscopic spread of malignant cells beyond the prostate capsule to determine whether and when clinical target volume (CTV) expansion should be performed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A detailed pathologic analysis was performed for 371 prostatectomy specimens. All slides from each case were reviewed by a single pathologist (N.S.G.). The ECE status and ECE distance, defined as the maximal linear radial distance of malignant cells beyond the capsule, were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients (33%) were found to have ECE (68 unilateral, 53 bilateral). Median ECE distance=2.4 mm [range: 0.05-7.0 mm]. The 90th-percentile distance = 5.0 mm. Of the 121 cases with ECE, 55% had ECE distance>or=2 mm, 19%>or=4 mm, and 6%>or=6 mm. ECE occurred primarily posterolaterally along the neurovascular bundle in all cases. Pretreatment prostrate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason, pathologic Gleason, clinical stage, bilateral involvement, positive margins, percentage of gland involved, and maximal tumor dimension were associated with presence of ECE. Both PSA and Gleason score were associated with ECE distance. In all 371 patients, for those with either pretreatment PSA>or=10 or biopsy Gleason score>or=7, 21% had ECE>or=2 mm and 5%>or=4 mm beyond the capsule. For patients with both of these risk factors, 49% had ECE>or=2 mm and 21%>or=4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: For prostate cancer with ECE, the median linear distance of ECE was 2.4 mm and occurred primarily posterolaterally. Although only 5% of patients demonstrate ECE>4 to 5 mm beyond the capsule, this risk may exceed 20% in patients with PSA>or=10 ng/ml and biopsy Gleason score>or=7. As imaging techniques improve for prostate capsule delineation and as radiotherapy delivery techniques increase in accuracy, a posterolateral CTV expansion should be considered for patients at high risk.

A new model using number of needles and androgen deprivation to predict chronic urinary toxicity for high or low dose rate prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Prostate brachytherapy is an established treatment modality in early stage prostate cancer. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a single treatment modality for early prostate cancer with emphasis on chronic toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 1996 to August 2003, 253 patients with stage II prostate cancer, prostate specific antigen less than 12 and Gleason score less than 7 were treated with brachytherapy alone at our institution. A total of 92 patients underwent HDR brachytherapy with 192Ir, while 161 underwent LDR brachytherapy with 103Pd. HDR minimum prostate dose was 38 Gy, delivered in 4 fractions with a single implant during 36 hours. For HDR we used real-time dynamic 3-dimensional ultrasound base dosimetry. For 103Pd seed implants the dose was 120 Gy using selective peripheral weighted dose distribution. Treatment was given based on patient preference after pretreatment transrectal ultrasound. Toxicity was scored using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 2.0. Median followup in all 253 cases was 2.9 years. RESULTS: In all patients the rate of 3-year urinary toxicity grade 2 or greater and grade 3 or greater was 26% and 6.9%, which was not significantly different between HDR and LDR (p = 0.3 and 0.4, respectively). However, grade 1 urogenital toxicity was lower for HDR (p = 0.002). The 3-year grade 2 rectal toxicity rate was 0.8% with no grade 3 or greater events, which was and similar in the HDR and LDR groups (1% and 0.6%, respectively). No cancer related deaths occurred and 4-year overall survival was 99% for HDR and 96.4% for LDR (p = 0.4). The 3-year American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology biochemical control rate was 90% for LDR and 93% for HDR. Cox multivariate analysis for grade 2 or greater urinary toxicity was significant for the use of 14 or greater needles (HR 6.1, p = 0.02) and hormonal therapy (HR 2.2, p = 0.02). In the absence of risk factors the 4-year grade 2 or greater urinary toxicity rate was 7% vs 65% if the 2 risk factors were present (p <0.001). Impotence crude rates were 18.3% for HDR and 41.3% for LDR (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: HDR and LDR chronic urinary toxicity grade 2 or greater rates were equivalent. However, grade 1 was lower for HDR. The impotence rate was decrease by half with HDR. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and 14 or greater needles were significantly associated with increased chronic urinary toxicity on multivariate analysis.

Prostate gland motion assessed with cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI).

PURPOSE: To quantify prostate motion during a radiation therapy treatment using cine-magnetic resonance imaging (cine-MRI) for time frames comparable to that expected in an image-guided radiation therapy treatment session (20-30 min). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer were imaged on 3 days, over the course of therapy (Weeks 1, 3, and 5). Four hundred images were acquired during the 1-h MRI session in 3 sagittal planes through the prostate at 6-s intervals. Eleven anatomic points of interest (POIs) have been used to characterize prostate/bony pelvis/abdominal wall displacement. Motion traces and standard deviation for each of the 11 POIs have been determined. The probability of displacement over time has also been calculated. RESULTS: Patients were divided into 2 groups according to rectal filling status: full vs. empty rectum. The displacement of POIs (standard deviation) ranged from 0.98 to 1.72 mm for the full-rectum group and from 0.68 to 1.04 mm for the empty-rectum group. The low standard deviations in position (2 mm or less) would suggest that these excursions have a low frequency of occurrence. The most sensitive prostate POI to rectal wall motion was the mid-posterior with a standard deviation of 1.72 mm in the full-rectum group vs. 0.79 mm in the empty-rectum group (p = 0.0001). This POI has a 10% probability of moving more than 3 mm in a time frame of approximately 1 min if the rectum is full vs. approximately 20 min if the rectum is empty. CONCLUSION: Motion of the prostate and seminal vesicles during a time frame similar to a standard treatment session is reduced compared to that reported in interfraction studies. The most significant predictor for intrafraction prostate motion is the status of rectal filling. A prostate displacement of <3 mm (90%) can be expected for the 20 min after the moment of initial imaging for patients with an empty rectum. This is not the case for patients presenting with full rectum. The determination of appropriate intrafraction margins in radiation therapy to accommodate the time-dependent uncertainty in positional targeting is a topic of ongoing investigations for the on-line image guidance model.

Online image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: How much improvement can we expect? A theoretical assessment of clinical benefits and potential dose escalation by improving precision and accuracy of radiation delivery.

PURPOSE: To quantify the theoretical benefit, in terms of improvement in precision and accuracy of treatment delivery and in dose increase, of using online image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) performed with onboard cone-beam computed tomography (CT), in an ideal setting of no intrafraction motion/deformation, in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two prostate cancer patients treated with conventional radiotherapy underwent multiple serial CT scans (median 18 scans per patient) during their treatment. We assumed that these data sets were equivalent to image sets obtainable by an onboard cone-beam CT. Each patient treatment was simulated with conventional IMRT and online IG-IMRT separately. The conventional IMRT plan was generated on the basis of pretreatment CT, with a clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-to-PTV) margin of 1 cm, and the online IG-IMRT plan was created before each treatment fraction on the basis of the CT scan of the day, without CTV-to-PTV margin. The inverse planning process was similar for both conventional IMRT and online IG-IMRT. Treatment dose for each organ of interest was quantified, including patient daily setup error and internal organ motion/deformation. We used generalized equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to compare the two approaches. The generalized EUD (percentage) of each organ of interest was scaled relative to the prescription dose at treatment isocenter for evaluation and comparison. On the basis of bladder wall and rectal wall EUD, a dose-escalation coefficient was calculated, representing the potential increment of the treatment dose achievable with online IG-IMRT as compared with conventional IMRT. RESULTS: With respect to radiosensitive tumor, the average EUD for the target (prostate plus seminal vesicles) was 96.8% for conventional IMRT and 98.9% for online IG-IMRT, with standard deviations (SDs) of 5.6% and 0.7%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The average EUDs of bladder wall and rectal wall for conventional IMRT vs. online IG-IMRT were 70.1% vs. 47.3%, and 79.4% vs. 72.2%, respectively. On average, a target dose increase of 13% (SD = 9.7%) can be achieved with online IG-IMRT based on rectal wall EUDs and 53.3% (SD = 15.3%) based on bladder wall EUDs. However, the variation (SD = 9.7%) is fairly large among patients; 27% of patients had only minimal benefit (<5% of dose increment) from online IG-IMRT, and 32% had significant benefit (>15%-41% of dose increment). CONCLUSIONS: The ideal maximum dose increment achievable with online IG-IMRT is, on average, 13% with respect to the dose-limiting organ of rectum. However, there is a large interpatient variation, ranging <5%-41%. The results can be applied to calibrate other practical online image-guided techniques for prostate cancer radiotherapy, when intratreatment organ motion/deformation and machine delivery accuracy are considered.