Acute toxicity and health-related quality of life outcomes of localized prostate cancer patients treated with magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy: A prospective phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To report acute toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of a phase II clinical trial of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) were eligible. Treatment consisted of a single 15 Gy MRI-guided HDR-BT followed by external beam radiotherapy (37.5-46 Gy depending on their risk category). Dosimetry, toxicity and HRQoL outcomes were collected prospectively at baseline, 1 and 3 months using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0 and the expanded PCa index composite, respectively. General linear mixed modeling was conducted to assess the changes in expanded PCa index composite domain scores over time. A minimally important difference was defined as a deterioration of HRQoL scores at 3 months compared to baseline ≥ 0.5 standard deviation. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included. Acute grade (G)2 urinary toxicity was observed in 18 (30%) patients while 1 (2%) patient had G3 toxicity, and none had G4 toxicity. Two patients had an acute urinary retention. G2 gastrointestinal toxicity was reported by 5 (8%) patients with no G3-4. Compared to baseline, urinary HRQoL scores significantly declined at 1 month (p < 0.001) but recovered at 3 months (p > 0.05). Bowel (p < 0.001) and sexual (p < 0.001) domain scores showed a significant decline over the 3-month follow-up period. At 3 months, 44%, 49% and 57% of patients reported a minimally important difference respectively in the urinary bowel and sexual domains. CONCLUSION: MRI-guided HDR-BT boost is a safe and well tolerated treatment of intermediate- and high-risk PCa in the acute setting. A longer follow-up and a comparison to ultrasound-based HDR-BT are needed to assess the potential benefit of MRI-guided prostate HDR-BT.

Tumor-targeted dose escalation for localized prostate cancer using MR-guided HDR brachytherapy (HDR) or integrated VMAT (IB-VMAT) boost: Dosimetry, toxicity and health related quality of life.

PURPOSE: To report dosimetry, preliminary toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of tumor-targeted dose-escalation delivered by integrated boost volumetric arc therapy (IB-VMAT) or MR-guided HDR brachytherapy (HDR) boost for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, with at least 1 identifiable intraprostatic lesion on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) were enrolled in a prospective non-randomized phase II study. All patients received VMAT to the prostate alone (76 Gy in 38 fractions) plus a GTV boost: IB-VMAT (95 Gy in 38 fractions) or MR-guided HDR (10 Gy single fraction). GTV was delineated on mpMRI and deformably registered to planning CT scans. Comparative dosimetry using EQD2 assuming α/ß 3 Gy was performed. Toxicity and health-related quality of life data (HRQoL) data were collected using CTCAE v.4.0, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC). RESULTS: Forty patients received IB-VMAT and 40 HDR boost. Organs at risk and target minimal doses were comparable between the two arms. HDR achieved higher mean and maximal tumor doses (p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 31 months (range 25-48); Acute grade G2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 30% and 37.5% in IB-VMAT and HDR boost, while gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 7.5% and 10%, respectively. Three patients developed acute G3 events, two GU toxicity (one IB-VMAT and one HDR boost) and one GI (IB-VMAT). Late G2 GU toxicity was 25% and 17.5% in the IB-VMAT and HDR boost arm and G2 GI was 5% and 7.5%, respectively. Two patients, both on the IB-VMAT arm, developed late G3 toxicity: one GI and one GU. No statistically significant difference was found in HRQoL between radiotherapy techniques (p > 0.2). Urinary and bowel HRQoL domains in both groups declined significantly by week 6 of treatment in both arms (p < 0.05) and recovered baseline scores at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Intraprostatic tumor dose escalation using IB-VMAT or MR-guided HDR boost achieved comparable OAR dosimetry, toxicity and HRQOL outcomes, but higher mean and maximal tumor dose were achieved with the HDR technique. Further follow-up will determine long-term outcomes including disease control.

Dose to the bladder neck in MRI-guided high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: Impact on acute urinary toxicity and health-related quality of life.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of the dose to the bladder neck (BN) on acute urinary toxicity (AUT) and health-related quality of life (uHRQoL) in patients with prostate cancer treated with MRI-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy combined to external beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-one patients were treated with a single 15-Gy MRI-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy followed by external beam radiotherapy as part of a prospective Phase II trial. The BN was delineated in retrospect on T2-weighted images. AUT and uHRQoL data were collected prospectively using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 and the expanded prostate index composite. A minimally important difference (MID) was defined as a deterioration of uHRQoL scores at 3 months ≥ 0.5 standard deviation of baseline score. Linear and logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: The median BN volume was 0.6 cc. The median BN and urethral maximum dose (BNDmax and UDmax) were 22 Gy and 20 Gy, respectively. BNDmax was significantly associated with UDmax (p = 0.03). AUT Grade 2 + was observed in 32% of patients. Among those, 4 patients had an acute urinary retention (AUR). No Grade 4 + toxicity was reported. At 3 months, 47% of patients reported an MID in urinary uHRQoL. None of the dosimetric parameters including BNDmax was associated with acute Grade 2 + urinary toxicity or MID. However, 3 of 4 patients with AUR had a BNDmax in the highest quartile; >175% of prescription dose. CONCLUSIONS: Although a high BN dose was observed in patients who had an AUR, the predictive value of this parameter is yet to be determined in a larger cohort.

Phase 2 trial of guideline-based postoperative image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Toxicity, biochemical, and patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize treatment-related toxicities, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and biochemical outcomes in patients treated with postoperative image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using a consensus guideline for defining the clinical target volume. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between August 2007 and October 2008, patients considered for radiation therapy (RT) after prostatectomy were enrolled. The clinical target volume (prostate bed) was delineated according to published consensus guidelines, and patients were prescribed a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions. Radiation treatment planning prioritized rectal dose constraints over target volume coverage. Treatment was delivered by use of IMRT and daily cone beam computed tomographic guidance. Toxicity (graded according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) and HRQOL assessments according to the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire were collected prospectively at baseline, at week 5 (during RT), at 3 months, and at yearly follow-up visits. Cumulative toxicity and biochemical relapse-free rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Paired Student t tests with multiple testing correction were used to assess changes in HRQOL. RESULTS: A total of 68 men were evaluated, with median follow-up of 5.9 years. Fifty-three patients (77.9%) and 15 patients (22.1%) were treated with salvage and adjuvant RT, respectively. Primary planning objectives were met in most cases (97.1%), but planning target volume coverage was compromised in 40% of cases because of large planning target volumes (mean 347.6 cm(3)). There were no grade 3 or 4 acute toxicities. Cumulative 5-year incidence of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary grade 2 toxicities was 12.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.1%-13.5%) and 10.6% (95% CI, 9.5%-11.6%), respectively. No grade 3 or 4 late toxicities were observed. Transient declines in EPIC gastrointestinal domain summary score (mean 87.66 at 3 months vs 92.76 at baseline; P = .006) and genitourinary irritative subscale (week 5 mean score 83.37 vs 89.45 at baseline; P = .007) were observed. Complete recovery occurred between 3 and 12 months after therapy, remaining stable compared with baseline at 5-year follow-up. Sexual HRQOL remained stable at 5 years, with an improving trend in bother subscale. Biochemical relapse-free rate at 5 years was 72.7% (95% CI, 61.9%-83.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-based postprostatectomy image guided IMRT with rigid rectal dose constraints resulted in favorable toxicity profiles; long-term stability in gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and sexual HRQOL; and expected biochemical control rates. Concerns regarding toxicity and HRQOL should not preclude recommendation for RT after prostatectomy.