Hyaluronic Acid Spacer for Hypofractionated Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer has been associated with greater acute grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxic effects compared with conventionally fractionated RT. Objective: To evaluate whether a hyaluronic acid rectal spacer could (1) improve rectal dosimetry and (2) affect acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects for hypofractionated RT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 2020 to June 2021 among 12 centers within the US, Australia, and Spain, with a 6-month follow-up. Adult patients with biopsy-proven, T1 to T2 prostate cancer with a Gleason score 7 or less and prostate-specific antigen level of 20 ng/mL or less (to convert to µg/L, multiply by 1) were blinded to the treatment arms. Of the 260 consented patients, 201 patients (77.3%) were randomized (2:1) to the presence or absence of the spacer. Patients were stratified by intended 4-month androgen deprivation therapy use and erectile quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the primary outcome, we hypothesized that more than 70% of patients in the spacer group would achieve a 25% or greater reduction in the rectal volume receiving 54 Gy (V54). For the secondary outcome, we hypothesized that the spacer group would have noninferior acute (within 3 months) grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects compared with the control group, with a margin of 10%. Results: Of the 201 randomized patients, 8 (4.0%) were Asian, 26 (12.9%) Black, 42 (20.9%) Hispanic or Latino, and 153 (76.1%) White; the mean (SD) age for the spacer group was 68.6 (7.2) years and 68.4 (7.3) years for the control group. For the primary outcome, 131 of 133 (98.5%; 95% CI, 94.7%-99.8%) patients in the spacer group experienced a 25% or greater reduction in rectum V54, which was greater than the minimally acceptable 70% (P < .001). The mean (SD) reduction was 85.0% (20.9%). For the secondary outcome, 4 of 136 patients (2.9%) in the spacer group and 9 of 65 patients (13.8%) in the control group experienced acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects (difference, -10.9%; 95% 1-sided upper confidence limit, -3.5; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The trial results suggest that rectal spacing with hyaluronic acid improved rectal dosimetry and reduced acute grade 2 or higher GI toxic effects. Rectal spacing should potentially be considered for minimizing the risk of acute grade 2 or higher toxic effects for hypofractionated RT. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04189913.

The Oral Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist Relugolix as Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy to External Beam Radiotherapy in Patients with Localised Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Randomised, Open-label, Parallel-group Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option to prolong survival for patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was evaluated in this clinical setting in comparison with degarelix, an injectable GnRH antagonist. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of relugolix to achieve and maintain castration. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 2 open-label study was conducted in 103 intermediate-risk PCa patients undergoing primary EBRT and neoadjuvant/adjuvant ADT between June 2014 and December 2015. INTERVENTION: Patients randomly assigned (3:2) to 24-wk treatment with either daily oral relugolix or 4-wk subcutaneous depot degarelix (reference control). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the rate of effective castration (testosterone <1.73nmol/l) in relugolix patients between 4 and 24 wk of treatment. Secondary endpoints included rate of profound castration (testosterone <0.7nmol/l), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Aging Males' Symptoms scale, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (30-item EORTC core questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-C30] and 25-item EORTC prostate cancer module [EORTC QLQ-PR25]) questionnaires, and safety. No formal statistical comparisons with degarelix were planned. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Castration rates during treatment were 95% and 82% with relugolix and 89% and 68% with degarelix for 1.73 and 0.7nmol/l thresholds, respectively. Median time to castration in the relugolix arm was 4 d. During treatment, PSA levels and prostate volumes were reduced in both groups. Three months after discontinuing treatment, 52% of men on relugolix and 16% on degarelix experienced testosterone recovery (statistical significance of differences not tested). Mean and median QoL scores improved following treatment discontinuation. The most common adverse event was hot flush (relugolix 57%; degarelix 61%). Lack of blinding was a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Relugolix achieved testosterone suppression to castrate levels within days and maintained it over 24 wk with a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action. PATIENT SUMMARY: Oral once-daily relugolix may be a novel oral alternative to injectable androgen deprivation therapies.

Hydrogel Spacer Application Technique, Patient Tolerance and Impact on Prostate Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: Results from a Prospective, Multicenter, Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the safety, tolerability and impact on therapy of an absorbable hydrogel perirectal spacer (SpaceOAR® system) designed to reduce the rectal radiation dose during prostate cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: A multicenter, pivotal, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 222 men with stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer treated to 79.2 Gy with image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy in 44 fractions. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive fiducial markers and perirectal spacer injection (spacer group) or fiducial markers alone (control group). Spacer placement, tolerability, perirectal space creation, impact on rectal dose and impact on quality of life were assessed. RESULTS: Most spacer procedures were conducted with the patient under general or local anesthesia. Procedures were rated easy or very easy in 98.7% of cases with a 99.3% success rate. Mild transient rectal events were noted in 10% of patients in the spacer group (eg pain, discomfort). Mean perirectal space was 12.6 mm after implant and 10.9 mm at 12.4 weeks with absorption at 12 months. A 25% or greater reduction in rectal V70 dose was produced in 97.3% of patients in the spacer group. The spacer group experienced a significant reduction in late rectal toxicity severity (p=0.044) as well as lower rates of decrease in bowel quality of life at 6, 12 and 15 months compared to the control group. There were no unanticipated adverse spacer effects or spacer related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrogel spacer application was straightforward and repeatable, resulting in consistent perirectal space creation and rectal dose reduction. Spacer application has the potential to improve prostate radiotherapy outcomes and enable advanced radiotherapy protocols.

Fifteen-year biochemical relapse-free survival, cause-specific survival, and overall survival following I(125) prostate brachytherapy in clinically localized prostate cancer: Seattle experience.

PURPOSE: To report 15-year biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) outcomes of patients treated with I(125) brachytherapy monotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer early in the Seattle experience. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two hundred fifteen patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were consecutively treated from 1988 to 1992 with I(125) monotherapy. They were prospectively followed as a tight cohort. They were evaluated for BRFS, CSS, and OS. Multivariate analysis was used to evaluate outcomes by pretreatment clinical prognostic factors. BRFS was analyzed by the Phoenix (nadir + 2 ng/mL) definition. CSS and OS were evaluated by chart review, death certificates, and referring physician follow-up notes. Gleason scoring was performed by general pathologists at a community hospital in Seattle. Time to biochemical failure (BF) was calculated and compared by Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: Fifteen-year BRFS for the entire cohort was 80.4%. BRFS by D'Amico risk group classification cohort analysis was 85.9%, 79.9%, and 62.2% for low, intermediate, and high-risk patients, respectively. Follow-up ranged from 3.6 to 18.4 years; median follow-up was 15.4 years for biochemically free of disease patients. Overall median follow-up was 11.7 years. The median time to BF in those who failed was 5.1 years. CSS was 84%. OS was 37.1%. Average age at time of treatment was 70 years. There was no significant difference in BRFS between low and intermediate risk groups. CONCLUSION: I(125) monotherapy results in excellent 15-year BRFS and CSS, especially when taking into account the era of treatment effect.

Optimal equations for describing the relationship between prostate volume, number of sources, and total activity in permanent prostate brachytherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is an optimal type of mathematical equation for predicting seed and activity requirements for permanent prostate brachytherapy. METHODS: Four institutions with extensive brachytherapy experience each submitted details of more than 40 implants. The data was used to generate power and linear equations to reflect the relationship between preimplant volume and the number of seeds implanted, and preimplant volume and the total implant activity. We compared the R and standard error of the generated equations to determine which type of equation better fit the data. RESULTS: For the limited range of prostate volumes commonly implanted (20-60 mL), power and linear equations predict seed and activity requirements comparably well. CONCLUSIONS: Linear and power equations are equally suitable for generating institution-specific nomograms.

Permanent prostate brachytherapy preplanned technique: The modern Seattle method step-by-step and dosimetric outcomes.

PURPOSE: To describe, step-by-step, the current Seattle preplan technique, and report the dosimetric outcomes on 1,131 consecutively such treated prostate brachytherapy patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One thousand one hundred thirty one patients with prostate cancer were treated with iodine-125 ((125)I), palladium-103 ((103)Pd), or cesium-131 ((131)Cs) using a preplanned template-guided transrectal ultrasound-guided approach between January 2005 and August 2007. Day one computed tomography (CT) scans were taken for postimplantation dose-volume histogram evaluations. Postoperative prostate contours were drawn by one author (DN) on CT images taken on postoperative day one. RESULTS: The volume of prostate receiving 100% of prescription dose (V(100)) and percent dose to 90% of the prostate (%D(90)) were 95% and 106% for 558 monotherapy (125)I implants, 91% and 102% for 327 (103)Pd implants, and 97% and 111.5% for 13 (131)Cs implants, respectively. The median V(100) and percent D(90) were 91% and 101% for five boost (125)I implants, 92% and 104% for 228 boost (103)Pd implants. The median rectal volume receiving 100% of prescription dose (RV(100)) for (125)I, (103)Pd, and (131)Cs monotherapy implants were 0.3, 0.13, and 0.38cc, and for (125)I and (103)Pd boost implants were 0.16 and 0.13cc, respectively. No patient received an RV(100) of >0.92cc. CONCLUSIONS: Modern preplanned template and ultrasound-guided prostate brachytherapy can consistently result in excellent prostate dosimetry and rectal sparing.

Prostate tumor alignment and continuous, real-time adaptive radiation therapy using electromagnetic fiducials: clinical and cost-utility analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy, utility, and cost effectiveness of a new electromagnetic patient positioning and continuous, real-time monitoring system, which uses permanently implanted resonant transponders in the target (Calypso 4D Localization System and Beacon transponders, Seattle, WA) to continuously monitor tumor location and movement during external beam radiation therapy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This clinical trial studied 43 patients at 5 sites. All patients were implanted with 3 transponders each. In 41 patients, the system was used for initial alignment at each therapy session. Thirty-five patients had continuous monitoring during their radiation treatment. Over 1,000 alignment comparisons were made to a commercially available kV X-ray positioning system (BrainLAB ExacTrac, Munich, Germany). Using decision analysis and Markov processes, the outcomes of patients were simulated over a 5-year period and measured in terms of costs from a payer's perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: All patients had satisfactory transponder implantations for monitoring purposes. In over 75% of the treatment sessions, the correction to conventional positioning (laser and tattoos) directed by an electromagnetic patient positioning and monitoring system was greater than 5 mm. Ninety-seven percent (34/35) of the patients who underwent continuous monitoring had target motion that exceeded preset limits at some point during the course of their radiation therapy. Exceeding preset thresholds resulted in user intervention at least once during the therapy in 80% of the patients (28/35). Compared with localization using ultrasound, electronic portal imaging devices (EPID), or computed tomography (CT), localization with the electromagnetic patient positioning and monitoring system yielded superior gains in QALYs at comparable costs. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients positioned with conventional tattoos and lasers for prostate radiation therapy were found by use of the electromagnetic patient positioning and monitoring system to have alignment errors exceeding 5 mm. Almost all patients undergoing external beam radiation of the prostate have been shown to have target organ movement exceeding 3 mm during radiation therapy delivery. The ability of the electromagnetic technology to monitor tumor target location during the same time as radiation therapy is being delivered allows clinicians to provide real time adaptive radiation therapy for prostate cancer. This permits clinicians to intervene when the prostate moves outside the radiation isocenter, which should decrease adverse events and improve patient outcomes. Additionally, a cost-utility analysis has demonstrated that the electromagnetic patient positioning and monitoring system offers patient outcome benefits at a cost that falls well within the payer's customary willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY.

Inter-institutional variation of implant activity for permanent prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Despite the existence of guidelines for permanent prostate brachytherapy, it is unclear whether there is interinstitutional consensus concerning the parameters of an ideal implant. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Three institutions with extensive prostate brachytherapy expertise submitted information regarding their implant philosophy and dosimetric constraints, as well as data on up to 50 radioiodine implants. Regression analyses were performed to reflect each institution's utilization of seeds and implanted activity. RESULTS: Despite almost identical implant philosophy, target volume, and dosimetric constraints, there were statistically significant interinstitutional differences in the number of seeds and total implant activity across the range of prostate volumes. For larger volumes, the variation in implanted activity was 25%; for smaller glands, it exceeded 40%. CONCLUSIONS: There remain wide variations in implanted activity between institutions espousing seemingly identical implant strategies, prescription, and dosimetry constraints. Brachytherapists should therefore be wary of using nomograms generated at other institutions.

Interstitial implant alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a survey of practice patterns in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study is aimed at understanding and defining the current patterns of care with respect to prostate brachytherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localized disease in the combined academic and community setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A nomogram-based survey was developed at the Seattle Prostate Institute defining the accepted criteria for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients were defined as having intermediate-risk prostate cancer if they met one of the following criteria: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/dL, Gleason score (GS) > or = 7, or cT2b or cT2c disease. Additional potential predictive factors including perineural invasion (PNI), GS 3+4 vs. 4+3, and high-volume disease were included. RESULTS: In the absence of PNI, all of those surveyed would perform monotherapy for intermediate-risk patients, GS 7 (3+4) or PSA 10-20, with cT1c and <30% cores +. Up to 80% would perform monotherapy for patients with cT1c, GS 7 (4+3), and <30% cores +. Eighty to 90% of physicians would perform an implant alone with cT2a and either a PSA of 10-20 or GS of 7 (3+4) and <30% cores +. Fifty to 60% of those surveyed stated that they would treat a patient with cT2b disease, GS 7 (3+4), or PSA 11-20, with less than two-thirds of the biopsy cores positive in the absence of PNI. CONCLUSIONS: This Patterns of Care (POC) study reveals that certain subsets of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients are considered appropriate candidates for an interstitial implant alone.

15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical Stage T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle experience.

PURPOSE: Long-term biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) rates in patients with clinical Stages T1-T3 prostate cancer continue to be scrutinized after treatment with external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We report 15-year BRFS rates on 223 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer that were consecutively treated with I(125) or Pd (103) brachytherapy after 45-Gy neoadjuvant EBRT. Multivariate regression analysis was used to create a pretreatment clinical prognostic risk model using a modified American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (two consecutive serum prostate-specific antigen rises) as the outcome. Gleason scoring was performed by the pathologists at a community hospital. Time to biochemical failure was calculated and compared by using Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: Fifteen-year BRFS for the entire treatment group was 74%. BRFS using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering risk cohort analysis (95% confidence interval): low risk, 88%, intermediate risk 80%, and high risk 53%. Grouping by the risk classification described by D'Amico, the BRFS was: low risk 85.8%, intermediate risk 80.3%, and high risk 67.8% (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: I(125) or Pd(103) brachytherapy combined with supplemental EBRT results in excellent 15-year biochemical control. Different risk group classification schemes lead to different BRFS results in the high-risk group cohorts.

Second malignancies after prostate brachytherapy: incidence of bladder and colorectal cancers in patients with 15 years of potential follow-up.

PURPOSE: To report the incidence of second bladder and colorectal cancers after prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This review included 125 patients treated with I-125 brachytherapy alone, and 223 patients who received supplemental external beam radiation therapy. Median follow-up was 10.5 years. Patients were followed for the development of lower genitourinary and colorectal cancers. Second malignancies arising five years after radiation therapy were defined as being potentially associated with treatment; observed rates were then compared with age-matched expected rates according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. RESULTS: Five years out of treatment, there were 15 patients with a second solid tumor, including bladder cancer (n = 11), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and prostatic urethra cancer (n = 1). The incidence of second malignancy was no different in patients treated with brachytherapy alone (1.6%) vs. those receiving external beam radiotherapy (5.8%, p = 0.0623). There were more observed bladder cancers compared with those expected (relative risk, 2.34, 95% confidence interval 0.96-3.72; absolute excess risk 35 cancers per 10,000 patients). Relative risk did not significantly change over increasing follow-up intervals up to 20 years after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There may be an increased but small risk of developing a second malignancy after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. This outcome could be related to radiation carcinogenesis, but more vigilant screening and thorough workup as a result of radiation side effects and predisposing conditions (e.g., genetic and environmental factors) in many of the patients found to have second malignancies likely contributed to the higher number of observed malignancies than expected.

Technical improvement in permanent seed implantation: a two-stage brachytherapy system. Description and comparison with current technique.

PURPOSE: Permanent seed implantation by available techniques has modest limitations. A new, two-stage needle design and technique is described and evaluated in comparison to a conventional permanent seed technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The technique involves placing a stylet and sleeve initially into the all target coordinates prior to seed placement similar to temporary seed technique. The second stage involves consecutively removing the stylet from each sleeve and inserting a clear, plastic needle containing preloaded seeds into the sleeve and implanting the seeds. Fifty-six (125)I patients were treated with the two-stage technique. Comparisons were made with a cohort of 71 patients implanted using a conventional technique at the Seattle Prostate Institute. Prostate movement, surgical time, catheterization rate, and DVH postop dosimetry were analyzed. RESULTS: After an initial learning curve, the two-stage technique had surgical times similar to conventional techniques. Cephalad movement of 3-10 mm was noted in 4 (8%) patients vs. 71 (100%) patients with our conventional technique. Of the 6 (10%) patients who required Foley catheterization, 3 (5%) did so for 1 day and 3 (5%) did so for less than 3 weeks. Day 1 CT scan based dosimetry was calculated on all patients. The V100 ranged from 80-100% with a median of 92.5%. For primary cases, the V100 (<85%) was 14% for the conventional vs. 7% for the two-stage technique. No two-stage patient had a V100 <80%. The V100 values for the two-stage and conventional techniques demonstrated a possible advantage with the two-stage technique (mean V100 92.6% vs. 90.7%, [p=0.051]). The D90 for the two-stage technique ranged from 123-190 Gy with a median of 151.5 Gy for implant only and a median of 127 Gy for boost cases. The D90 values for the two-stage patients were slightly but not statistically better than the conventional technique (p=0.232). Thirty-one percent of conventional technique patients had a D90 <140 Gy vs. 22% for two-stage technique. CONCLUSION: This new two-stage brachytherapy technique may offer some advantages over conventional techniques including: simple and improved needle loading verification, less complicated and better visualization of needle placement, improved stabilization of the gland, and more consistent postoperative dosimetry.

Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival after external beam radiation and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: the Seattle experience.

PURPOSE: The role of external beam radiation therapy in addition to brachytherapy continues to be scrutinized for long term control of PSA levels after prostate cancer diagnosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We report 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) on 232 patients presenting with localized prostate cancer and consecutively treated with iodine(125) (I(125)) or palladium(103) (Pd(103)) brachytherapy and neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Multivariate regression analysis was used to create a pretreatment clinical prognostic risk model using a modified ASTRO consensus definition (two consecutive rises in serum PSA) as the outcome. Gleason scoring was performed by pathologists at a small community hospital. Derived risk categories are the following: low = PSA 10 ng/mL or Gleason Score >or=7 or stage >or=T2c (1 intermediate risk factor); and high = 2 or more intermediate risk factors. Time to PSA failure (local, distant, or biochemical) was calculated and compared using Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: Ten-year BRFS for the entire treatment group was 70%. Biochemical control rates by risk cohort analysis (95% confidence interval): low risk, 85% (83.3-90.7%); intermediate risk, 77% (73.0-84.5%); and high risk, 45% (45.4-57.2%). Using a risk grouping proposed by the Mt. Sinai group, the BRFS was: low risk, 84%; intermediate risk, 93%; and high risk, 57%. Grouping by the risk classification used by D'Amico, the BRFS was: low risk, 86%; intermediate risk, 90%; and high risk, 48%. CONCLUSIONS: I(125) or Pd(103) brachytherapy, as a boost combined with EBRT, continues to result in high rates of biochemical control at 10 years. Different risk group classification schemes lead to different BRFS results.

Brachytherapy for carcinoma of the prostate: techniques, patient selection, and clinical outcomes.

Brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma has developed as either low dose rate permanent implants or high dose rate afterloading. Both approaches offer unsurpassed dose escalation and, particularly with permanent implants, the convenience of a single outpatient treatment. These therapies have now entered the mainstream of treatment options and are in the refinement phase of development. Techniques of implantation, treatment planning approaches, innovative fractionation schemes, and appropriate patient selection are the subject of current investigation. Treatment results are available beyond 10 years and appear equivalent or superior to other modalities. Although short term morbidity can be significant with brachytherapy, most current series report low long-term urinary and rectal complications. Meaningful quality of life studies and randomized cooperative group trials are now underway and should help define the role of brachytherapy in the near future.