A unified strategy to focal brachytherapy incorporating transperineal biopsy, image fusion, and real-time implantation with and without rectal spacer simulated in prostate phantoms.

Purpose: To develop an approach to the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer using one platform for fusion biopsy, followed by focal gland ablation utilizing permanent prostate brachytherapy with and without a rectal spacer. Material and methods: Prostate phantoms containing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) regions of interest (ROI) underwent fusion biopsy, followed by image co-registration of positive sites to a treatment planning brachytherapy program. A partial hemi-ablation and both posterior lobes using a Mick applicator and linked stranded seeds were simulated. Dummy sources were modeled as iodine-125 (125I) with a prescribed dose of at least 210 Gy to gross tumor (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV), as defined by mpMRI visible ROI and surrounding negative biopsy sites. Computer tomograms (CT) were performed post-implant prior to and after rectal spacer insertion. Different prostate and rectal constraints were compared with and without the spacer. Results: The intra-operative focal volumes of CTV ranged from 6.2 to 14.9 cc (mean, 11.3 cc), and the ratio of focal volume/whole prostate volume ranged between 0.19 and 0.42 (mean, 0.31). The intra- and post-operative mean focal D90 of GTV, CTV, and for the entire prostate gland was 265 Gy and 235 Gy, 214 Gy and 213 Gy, and 66.1 Gy and 57 Gy, respectively. On average, 13 mm separation was achieved between the prostate and the rectum (range, 12-14 mm) on post-operative CT. The mean doses in Gy to 2 cc of the rectum (D2cc) without spacer vs. with spacer were 39.8 Gy vs. 32.6 Gy, respectively. Conclusions: Doses above 200 Gy and the implantation of seeds in clinically significant region for focal therapy in phantoms are feasible. All rectal dosimetric parameters improved for the spacer implants, as compared with the non-spacer implants. Further validation of this concept is warranted in clinical trials.

Concurrent Chemotherapy and Pelvic Radiation Therapy Compared With Pelvic Radiation Therapy Alone as Adjuvant Therapy After Radical Surgery in High-Risk Early-Stage Cancer of the Cervix.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT) to pelvic radiation therapy (RT) will improve the survival of early-stage, high-risk patients with cervical carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage IA2, IB, and IIA carcinoma of the cervix, initially treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and who had positive pelvic lymph nodes and/or positive margins and/or microscopic involvement of the parametrium were eligible for this study. Patients were randomized to receive RT or RT + CT. Patients in each group received 49.3 GY RT in 29 fractions to a standard pelvic field. Chemotherapy consisted of bolus cisplatin 70 mg/m2 and a 96-hour infusion of fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m2/d every 3 weeks for four cycles, with the first and second cycles given concurrent to RT. RESULTS: Between 1991 and 1996, 268 patients were entered onto the study. Two hundred forty-three patients were assessable (127 RT + CT patients and 116 RT patients). Progression-free and overall survival are significantly improved in the patients receiving CT. The hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival in the RT only arm versus the RT + CT arm are 2.01 (P = .003) and 1.96 (P = .007), respectively. The projected progression-free survivals at 4 years is 63% with RT and 80% with RT + CT. The projected overall survival rate at 4 years is 71% with RT and 81% with RT + CT. Grades 3 and 4 hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicity were more frequent in the RT + CT group. CONCLUSION: The addition of concurrent cisplatin-based CT to RT significantly improves progression-free and overall survival for high-risk, early-stage patients who undergo radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the cervix.

Sexual health and treatment-related sexual dysfunction in sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer treatment has substantial effects on sexual health and function. Sexual function is a vital aspect of human health and a critical component of cancer survivorship, and understanding the potential effects of different treatment modalities on sexual health is crucial. Existing research has extensively described the effects of treatment on male erectile tissues necessary for heterosexual intercourse; however, evidence regarding their effects on sexual health and function in sexual and gender minority populations is minimal. These groups include sexual minority - gay and bisexual - men, and transgender women or trans feminine people in general. Such unique effects in these groups might include altered sexual function in relation to receptive anal and neovaginal intercourse and changes to patients' role-in-sex. Sexual dysfunctions following prostate cancer treatment affecting quality of life in sexual minority men include climacturia, anejaculation, decreased penile length, erectile dysfunction, and problematic receptive anal intercourse, including anodyspareunia and altered pleasurable sensation. Notably, clinical trials investigating sexual outcomes after prostate cancer treatment do not collect sexual orientation and gender identity demographic data or outcomes specific to members of these populations, which perpetuates the uncertainty regarding optimal management. Providing clinicians with a solid evidence base is essential to communicate recommendations and tailor interventions for sexual and gender minority patients with prostate cancer.

Outcomes after PD-103 versus I-125 for low dose rate prostate brachytherapy monotherapy: An international, multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Pd-103 and I-125 are commonly used in low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Comparisons of outcomes by isotope type are limited, but Pd-103 has distinct radiobiologic advantages over I-125 despite its lesser availability outside the United States. We evaluated oncologic outcomes after Pd-103 vs I-125 LDR monotherapy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed databases at 8 institutions for men who received definitive LDR monotherapy with Pd-103 (n = 1,597) or I-125 (n = 7,504) for prostate cancer. Freedom from clinical failure (FFCF) and freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) stratified by isotope were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier univariate and Cox multivariate analyses. Biochemical cure rates (prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 0.2 ng/mL between 3.5 and 4.5 years of follow-up) by isotype were calculated for men with at least 3.5 years of follow-up and compared by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared with I-125, Pd-103 led to higher 7-year rates of FFBF (96.2% vs 87.6%, P < 0.001) and FFCF (96.5% vs 94.3%, P < 0.001). This difference held after multivariate adjustment for baseline factors (FFBF hazard ratio [HR] = 0.31, FFCF HR = 0.49, both P < 0.001). Pd-103 was also associated with higher cure rates on univariate (odds ratio [OR] = 5.9, P < 0.001) and multivariate (OR = 6.0, P < 0.001) analyses. Results retained significance in sensitivity analyses of data from the 4 institutions that used both isotopes (n = 2,971). CONCLUSIONS: Pd-103 monotherapy was associated with higher FFBF, FFCF, and biochemical cure rates, and suggests that Pd-103 LDR may lead to improved oncologic outcomes compared with I-125.

Clinical and treatment characteristics of secondary bladder malignancies following low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To characterize the clinical course and prognosis of bladder malignancies associated with prior prostate brachytherapy SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried our institutional database for patients with bladder cancer (BC) diagnosed between January 2005 and April 2019 who had previously undergone low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy. Patients diagnosed with BC at least 1 year following LDR prostate brachytherapy with or without external beam radiation therapy were included. Clinical and disease-specific characteristics were abstracted from chart review and survival outcomes were estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. We compared the pathologic characteristics and prognosis of secondary BCs in our study cohort to those of BCs diagnosed after prostate cancer managed without radiation reported by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) populational database from 2005 to 2018. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-five patients were identified with combined diagnosis of prostate cancer and BC, 51 of whom met inclusion criteria in the study cohort. Median times from brachytherapy to BC diagnosis for the study and SEER cohort were 9.5 ± 4.5 and 6.3 ± 4.1 years, respectively. Compared to the SEER cohort, significantly greater proportion of BC from the study cohort presented with high-grade (study: 78.4%, SEER: 52.3%, P = 0.0008) and with MIBC (Study BC 35.3%, SEER BC: 17.5%, P = 0.0009). The study and the SEER cohort had similar 5-year overall survival (study: 67.9%, SEER: 58.0%, P = 0.1099), and 5-year cancer-specific survival (study: 81.0%, SEER: 82.8%, P = 0.5559). The 5-year progression-free survival for the study cohort was 43.7% (95% CI: 28.8-57.7). CONCLUSION: Compared to bladder cancers following prostate cancer managed without radiation, bladder malignancies following prostate LDR brachytherapy present with higher grade and are more likely to be muscle invasive. Despite the aggressive presenting features of postprostate brachytherapy BC, there were no differences in overall and cancer-specific survival between the groups.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Oligoprogression of Solid Tumors on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: The Impact of Local Ablative Radiation Therapy.

The breakthrough of a limited number of clones while on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), known as oligoprogression, has been previously described. The benefit of ablative radiation therapy (RT) directed at these clones, as opposed to changing systemic therapy, is unclear. We analyzed 30 patients with advanced solid tumors, the majority of whom (23/30, 86.7%) had either hepatocellular or urothelial carcinoma, who experienced oligoprogression on ICIs and were referred for RT. In this study, oligoprogression was defined as having experienced progression at three or fewer metastatic sites outside of the brain after achieving at least stable disease on ICIs for a minimum of three months. The median time to oligoprogression was 11.1 months from the initiation of immunotherapy. 24 patients had one oligoprogressive lesion and six had two. The median radiation dose delivered was 4650 cGy in a median of five fractions. The median progression-free survival (PFS) after RT was 7.1 months, and the time to oligoprogression was not a significant predictor of PFS2. 26 patients continued on ICIs after RT. While 17 patients subsequently progressed, 15 did so at three or fewer metastatic sites and could have theoretically stood to benefit from an additional course of salvage RT to further extend the lifespan of their ICIs. Overall survival at 6, 12, and 24 months was 100.0%, 96.3%, and 82.8%, respectively. These results suggest that RT may provide a PFS benefit and extend the lifespan of ICIs in patients who experience oligoprogression. Regardless of PFS, however, overall survival in this population appears to be excellent.

Comparison of AUA and phoenix definitions of biochemical failure following permanent brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare biochemical recurrence free survival (BCRFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) after brachytherapy using the AUA and the Phoenix definitions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 2634 men with T1-T4N0M0 prostate cancer were treated with brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant hormonal therapy or external beam radiation therapy. Five, 10, and 15- year BCRFS and CSS were estimated with Kaplan-Meier estimates with log rank. Multivariate analysis of survival was performed with Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 66, follow-up was 8.6 years, and prostate specific antigen was 6.9. Overall, 11.1% (n = 293) of patients experienced Phoenix BCR and 17.48% (n = 457) experienced AUA BCR. The rates of AUA BCR and Phoenix BCR were significantly different at 5 and 10-years but not at 15 years. Patients treated with BED ≤ 200 Gy were more likely to experience AUA BCR (22.5% vs. 12.4%, OR 1.44, p < 0.001) and Phoenix BCR (14.3% and 8.3%, OR 1.37, p < 0.001) than patients treated with a BED > 200 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the Phoenix definition, the AUA definition of BCR after brachytherapy is associated with significantly worse BCRFS for the first 15 years after treatment. Receiving a BED > 200, which cannot be achieved without the addition of brachytherapy, is associated with better BCRFS and CSS. Our findings reaffirm the importance of dose in the management of prostate cancer.

Radium-223 for Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Prostate cancer is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among men worldwide. Although most patients present with localized or regional disease and experience excellent outcomes with treatment, approximately 10% to 20% of patients develop castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5 years of diagnosis. Bone metastases, which can cause pain and adversely affect quality of life, are common among this population. Radium-223 has a relatively short half-life and decays via α-decay. Its daughter products, α-particles, have a short path length in tissue and exhibit high linear energy transfer. Together, these properties allow radium-223 to achieve relatively high cell kill in its target tissue while sparing the surrounding normal tissues. Administered in the clinic as radium-223 dichloride (Xofigo), radium-223 acts as a calcium mimetic in the human body, forming complexes with hydroxyapatite. In areas of high bone turnover, such as the osteoblastic bone metastases that are common in patients with CRPC, radium-223 is preferentially incorporated into the bone matrix, where it can exert an antitumor effect. In May 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Xofigo for use in patients with CRPC who have symptomatic bone metastases and no visceral metastases. In this topic discussion, we review the mechanism of action and clinical efficacy of radium-223 in patients with metastatic CRPC. We also discuss its administration and handling, distribution and elimination, and associated toxicities.

Ocular complications with the use of radium-223: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 is used for the treatment of osseous metastases in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, and has been shown to increase time to the first skeletal-related event, reduce the rate of hospitalization, and improve quality of life. It is well tolerated, with hematologic toxicity as the main adverse event. Thus far, no ocular complication has been reported in the literature after initial administration of radium-223 with a single case reported of ocular complications after a patient's second course of radium-223. CASE PRESENTATIONS: We present three cases of ocular complications after the use of radium-223 in patients with metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma. Ocular complications presented as blurry vision, and formal diagnosis included uveitis and hyphema. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of adverse events is exceedingly important due to the high incidence of metastatic prostate cancer and increasing interest for the use of radium-223 in other osteoblastic disease. The authors postulate that these ocular complications may be a result of radiation's potential effect on neovascularization, polypharmacy, or the biomolecular effects of radium-223 on integral signaling proteins, potentially coupled with poor underlying ocular health.

Factors associated with late local failure and its influence on survival in men undergoing prostate brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the factors associated with a positive post-treatment prostate biopsy (PB) and the effects of local failure on biochemical control and cause-specific survival (CSS) in men receiving prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Of 545 men with post-implant PB, 484 were routine (median 24 months) while 61 (median 55 months) were for cause. 114 had a repeat PB for rising PSA. Initial mean PSA was 10.5 ng/ml (±13.9) while 244 (44.8%), 202 (37.1%) and 99 (18.2%) had low, intermediate or high-risk disease. Treatments were implant only in 287 (52.7%), and implant with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) ± external beam in 258. Radiation doses were converted to the biologically equivalent dose (BED). Final biopsy results were the last biopsy performed on that patient. Associations for the first and final biopsies with PSA, clinical stage (CS), Gleason grade group, time on hormone therapy (ADT) and BED were determined by ANOVA, chi-square and binary linear regression. Freedom from Phoenix failure (FFPF) and cause-specific survival were estimated by Kaplan Meier method and Cox proportions hazards. RESULTS: After a median of 11.4 years the first and final biopsy were positive in 10.8% and 8.8%, respectively. Significant linear regression associations with first positive PB were ADT (p = 0.005), CS (p = 0.044) and BED (p = 0.030) while only BED (p < 0.001) was significant for the final PB. Positive biopsy occurred in 21/112 (18.8%), 16/230 (7.0%) and 3/182 (1.6%) for BED ≤150, >150-200 and >200 Gy (p < 0.001), and in 29/261 (11.1%) for BED (median) ≤185 Gy vs. 5/263 (1.9%) for > 185 Gy (OR 4.2, p < 0.001). 15-year FFPF was 75.6 vs. 17.5% and cause-specific survival was 94.2 vs. 75.5% for negative vs. positive biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Higher radiation doses are associated with 1.9% late local failure following prostate brachytherapy. A negative post-implant PB is associated with superior FFPF and decreased prostate cancer mortality.

Interplay Between Duration of Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Optimal Treatment of High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Patient-Level Data Analysis of 3 Cohorts.

IMPORTANCE: Radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard of care for high-risk prostate cancer. However, the interplay between radiotherapy dose and the required minimum duration of ADT is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the specific ADT duration threshold that provides a distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) benefit in patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cohort study of 3 cohorts assembled from a multicenter retrospective study (2000-2013); a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy 03/04 (RADAR; 2003-2007) randomized clinical trial (RCT); and a cross-trial comparison of the RADAR vs the Deprivación Androgénica y Radio Terapía (Androgen Deprivation and Radiation Therapy; DART) 01/05 RCT (2005-2010). In all, the study analyzed 1827 patients treated with EBRT and 1108 patients treated with EBRT+BT from the retrospective cohort; 181 treated with EBRT and 203 with EBRT+BT from RADAR; and 91 patients treated with EBRT from DART. The study was conducted from October 15, 2020, to July 1, 2021, and the data analyses, from January 5 to June 15, 2021. EXPOSURES: High-dose EBRT or EBRT+BT for an ADT duration determined by patient-physician choice (retrospective) or by randomization (RCTs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was DMFS; secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum thresholds (months). RESULTS: This cohort study of 3 studies totaling 3410 men (mean age [SD], 68 [62-74] years; race and ethnicity not collected) with high-risk prostate cancer found a significant interaction between the treatment type (EBRT vs EBRT+BT) and ADT duration (binned to <6, 6 to <18, and ≥18 months). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum duration thresholds of 26.3 months (95% CI, 25.4-36.0 months) for EBRT and 12 months (95% CI, 4.9-36.0 months) for EBRT+BT for optimal effect on DMFS. In RADAR, the prolongation of ADT for patients receiving only EBRT was not associated with significant improvements in DMFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.65-1.57); however, for patients receiving EBRT+BT, a longer duration was associated with improved DMFS (DMFS HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P = .01). For patients receiving EBRT alone (DART), 28 months of ADT was associated with improved DMFS compared with 18 months (RADAR HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.80; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These cohort study findings suggest that the optimal minimum ADT duration for treatment with high-dose EBRT alone is more than 18 months; and for EBRT+BT, it is 18 months or possibly less. Additional studies are needed to determine more precise minimum durations.

Use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors is associated with reduced risk of late bladder toxicity following radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of late hematuria following prostate cancer radiotherapy identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) near AGT, encoding angiotensinogen. We tested the hypothesis that patients taking angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) have a reduced risk of late hematuria. We additionally tested genetically-defined hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate cancer patients undergoing potentially-curative radiotherapy were enrolled onto two multi-center observational studies, URWCI (N = 256) and REQUITE (N = 1,437). Patients were assessed pre-radiotherapy and followed prospectively for development of toxicity for up to four years. The cumulative probability of hematuria was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable grouped relative risk models assessed the effect of ACEi on time to hematuria adjusting for clinical factors and stratified by enrollment site. A polygenic risk score (PRS) for blood pressure was tested for association with hematuria in REQUITE and our Radiogenomics Consortium GWAS. RESULTS: Patients taking ACEi during radiotherapy had a reduced risk of hematuria (HR 0.51, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.94, p = 0.030) after adjusting for prior transurethral prostate and/or bladder resection, heart disease, pelvic node radiotherapy, and bladder volume receiving 70 Gy, which are associated with hematuria. A blood pressure PRS was associated with hypertension (odds ratio per standard deviation 1.38, 95%CI 1.31 to 1.46, n = 5,288, p < 0.001) but not hematuria (HR per standard deviation 0.96, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.06, n = 5,126, p = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to show a radioprotective effect of ACEi on bladder in an international, multi-site study of patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand how targeting the angiotensin pathway protects the bladder.

Performance of a Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography-Derived Risk-Stratification Tool for High-risk and Very High-risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect low-volume, nonlocalized (ie, regional or metastatic) prostate cancer that was occult on conventional imaging. However, the long-term clinical implications of PSMA PET/CT upstaging remain unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual's risk of nonlocalized upstaging on PSMA PET/CT and to compare its performance with existing risk-stratification tools. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients diagnosed with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8-10, and/or clinical stage T3-T4, without evidence of nodal or metastatic disease by conventional workup) from April 1995 to August 2018. This multinational study was conducted at 15 centers. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Curative-intent radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: PSMA upstage probability was calculated from a nomogram using the biopsy Gleason score, percentage positive systematic biopsy cores, clinical T category, and PSA level. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Fine-Gray and Cox regressions. Model performance was quantified with the concordance (C) index. Results: Of 5275 patients, the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years; 2883 (55%) were treated with RP, 1669 (32%) with EBRT, and 723 (14%) with EBRT plus BT; median (IQR) PSA level was 10.5 (5.9-23.2) ng/mL; 3987 (76%) had Gleason grade 8 to 10 disease; and 750 (14%) had stage T3 to T4 disease. Median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (3.1-7.9) years; 1221 (23%) were followed up for at least 8 years. Overall, 1895 (36%) had BCR, 851 (16%) developed DM, and 242 (5%) died of prostate cancer. PSMA upstage probability was significantly prognostic of all clinical end points, with 8-year C indices of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for BCR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) for DM, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for PCSM, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.62) for PCSM (P < .001). The PSMA nomogram outperformed existing risk-stratification tools, except for similar performance to Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP) for PCSM (eg, DM: PSMA, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71] vs STAR-CAP, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]; P < .001; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60]; P < .001; Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment groups, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.56]; P < .001). Results were validated in secondary cohorts from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and the National Cancer Database. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that PSMA upstage probability is associated with long-term, clinically meaningful end points. Furthermore, PSMA upstaging had superior risk discrimination compared with existing tools. Formerly occult, PSMA PET/CT-detectable nonlocalized disease may be the main driver of outcomes in high-risk patients.

Low dose rate brachytherapy for primary treatment of localized prostate cancer: A systemic review and executive summary of an evidence-based consensus statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to present evidence-based consensus recommendations for low dose rate (LDR) permanent seed brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Brachytherapy Society convened a task force for addressing key questions concerning ultrasound-based LDR prostate brachytherapy for the primary treatment of prostate cancer. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify prospective and multi-institutional retrospective studies involving LDR brachytherapy as monotherapy or boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy with or without adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Outcomes included disease control, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: LDR prostate brachytherapy monotherapy is an appropriate treatment option for low risk and favorable intermediate risk disease. LDR brachytherapy boost in combination with external beam radiation therapy is appropriate for unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Androgen deprivation therapy is recommended in unfavorable intermediate risk and high-risk disease. Acceptable radionuclides for LDR brachytherapy include iodine-125, palladium-103, and cesium-131. Although brachytherapy monotherapy is associated with increased urinary obstructive and irritative symptoms that peak within the first 3 months after treatment, the median time toward symptom resolution is approximately 1 year for iodine-125 and 6 months for palladium-103. Such symptoms can be mitigated with short-term use of alpha blockers. Combination therapy is associated with worse urinary, bowel, and sexual symptoms than monotherapy. A prostate specific antigen <= 0.2 ng/mL at 4 years after LDR brachytherapy may be considered a biochemical definition of cure. CONCLUSIONS: LDR brachytherapy is a convenient, effective, and well-tolerated treatment for prostate cancer.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Patterns of Clinical Progression in Radiorecurrent High-risk Prostate Cancer.

The natural history of radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) is not well-described. To better understand its clinical course, we evaluated rates of distant metastases (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a cohort of 978 men with radiorecurrent HRPCa who previously received either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 654, 67%) or EBRT + brachytherapy (EBRT + BT, n = 324, 33%) across 15 institutions from 1997 to 2015. In men who did not die, median follow-up after treatment was 8.9 yr and median follow-up after biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 3.7 yr. Local and systemic therapy salvage, respectively, were delivered to 21 and 390 men after EBRT, and eight and 103 men after EBRT + BT. Overall, 435 men developed DM, and 248 were detected within 1 yr of BCR. Measured from time of recurrence, 5-yr DM rates were 50% and 34% after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. Measured from BCR, 5-yr PCSM rates were 27% and 29%, respectively. Interval to BCR was independently associated with DM (p < 0.001) and PCSM (p < 0.001). These data suggest that radiorecurrent HRPCa has an aggressive natural history and that DM is clinically evident early after BCR. These findings underscore the importance of further investigations into upfront risk assessment and prompt systemic evaluation upon recurrence in HRPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: High-risk prostate cancer that recurs after radiation therapy is an aggressive disease entity and spreads to other parts of the body (metastases). Some 60% of metastases occur within 1 yr. Approximately 30% of these patients die from their prostate cancer.

Development of a method for generating SNP interaction-aware polygenic risk scores for radiotherapy toxicity.

AIM: To identify the effect of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) interactions on the risk of toxicity following radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and propose a new method for polygenic risk score incorporating SNP-SNP interactions (PRSi). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis included the REQUITE PCa cohort that received external beam RT and was followed for 2 years. Late toxicity endpoints were: rectal bleeding, urinary frequency, haematuria, nocturia, decreased urinary stream. Among 43 literature-identified SNPs, the 30% most strongly associated with each toxicity were tested. SNP-SNP combinations (named SNP-allele sets) seen in ≥10% of the cohort were condensed into risk (RS) and protection (PS) scores, respectively indicating increased or decreased toxicity risk. Performance of RS and PS was evaluated by logistic regression. RS and PS were then combined into a single PRSi evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Among 1,387 analysed patients, toxicity rates were 11.7% (rectal bleeding), 4.0% (urinary frequency), 5.5% (haematuria), 7.8% (nocturia) and 17.1% (decreased urinary stream). RS and PS combined 8 to 15 different SNP-allele sets, depending on the toxicity endpoint. Distributions of PRSi differed significantly in patients with/without toxicity with AUCs ranging from 0.61 to 0.78. PRSi was better than the classical summed PRS, particularly for the urinary frequency, haematuria and decreased urinary stream endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Our method incorporates SNP-SNP interactions when calculating PRS for radiotherapy toxicity. Our approach is better than classical summation in discriminating patients with toxicity and should enable incorporating genetic information to improve normal tissue complication probability models.

Live implant dosimetry may be an effective replacement for postimplant computed tomography in localized prostate cancer patients receiving low dose rate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine if Live Implant Dosimetry (LIDO) utilizing intraoperative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is equivalent to postimplant CT dosimetry (either day 0 or day 30) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) treated with low dose rate (LDR) prostate seed brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The treated population consisted of 628 men with localized (T1-T2) PC. All d'Amico risk categories (low, intermediate, and high) were included, and 437 patients were treated with monotherapy (160 Gy) [low and low tier intermediate], and the remainder (191) [high tier intermediate and high risk] with an implant boost (106 Gy) post external beam radiation, to a volume including the prostate and seminal vesicles (46 Gy). LIDO with intraoperative TRUS, postimplant CT (day 0 and day 30) were performed in all cases. Prostate volumes (V), V100 (prostate) and dose (D) D90 (prostate), D30 (urethra), and Rectum D2cc, were recorded. No urinary catheter was used on Day 30 CT. RESULTS: More than 91.33% of monotherapy patients reached the target D90 according to LIDO while only 82.99% of Day 0 CT and 92.82% of Day 30 CT achieved target D90. When considering V100, monotherapy patients recorded target dosimetry in 90.93%, 82.31%, and 92.02% of cases assessed by LIDO, Day 0 CT and Day 30 CT, respectively. Strong correlations are observed in D90, Rectum D2cc and Urethra D30 across imaging modalities but V100 and V150 were poorly correlated due to the relative quantification of this parameter and high degree of error in measurement. Of all monotherapy patients with satisfactory dosimetry on LIDO, 94.82% reached target D90 at day 30 CT and 94.19% reached target V100. CONCLUSIONS: LIDO and CT are both effective tools for assessing postimplant dosimetry. Patients with satisfactory LIDO dosimetry are highly likely to have equivalent dosimetry on CT at follow-up, indicating that postimplant CT may be eliminated in PC a patients implanted with this technique.

Safety and tolerability of venom immunotherapy: Evaluation of 581 rush- and ultra-rush induction protocols (safety of rush and ultra-rush venom immunotherapy).

BACKGROUND: Current literature is inconsistent regarding the risk of severe side effects using accelerated induction protocols in Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT). In addition, several data indicate the influence of purity grade of venom preparation on tolerability. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of ultra-rush and rush build-up protocols using purified and non-purified venom preparations. METHODS: Retrospective single-center study of 581 VIT inductions (325 ultra-rush and 256 rush protocols) from 2005 to 2018 in 559 patients with bee and vespid venom allergy using aqueous purified (ALK SQ®) for ultra-rush protocol and aqueous non-purified (ALK Reless®) venom preparations for rush protocol. RESULTS: Urticaria (8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0,013) and dose reductions (4.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0,026) were significantly more frequent in the ultra-rush group. Overall rate of moderate-to-severe side effects (anaphylaxis ≥ grade 2 according to Ring and Meßmer) was low and did not differ significantly between protocols (p = 0.105). Severe events (grade 4 anaphylaxis) were not reported. Discontinuation rate was very low in both cohorts (0.6% vs 1.2%). The higher purity grade of venom preparations in the ultra-rush cohort did not improve tolerability. The bee venom group showed a non-significant trend towards higher incidence of mild reactions (urticaria), resulting in more frequent dose reductions and antiallergic therapy. CONCLUSION: Rush and ultra-rush protocols show an excellent safety profile with only infrequent and mild anaphylactic reactions in bee and vespid venom allergy. Ultra-rush immunotherapy reduces the duration of the inpatient build-up phase setting and thus is viewed by the authors as preferred treatment in Hymenoptera venom allergic patients.