MRI-guided focal or integrated boost high dose rate brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer.
brachytherapy
magnetic resonance imaging
prostate cancer
radiotherapy
salvage
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
16
06
2022
accepted:
09
08
2022
entrez:
12
9
2022
pubmed:
13
9
2022
medline:
13
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy merits an effective salvage strategy that mitigates the risk of adverse events. We report outcomes of a cohort enrolled across two institutions investigating MRI-guided tumor-targeted salvage high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). Analysis of a prospective cohort of 88 patients treated across two institutions with MRI-guided salvage HDR-BT to visible local recurrence after radiotherapy (RT). Tumor target dose ranged from 22-26 Gy, using either an integrated boost (ibBT) or focal technique (fBT), delivered in two implants over a median of 7 days. Outcome metrics included cancer control and toxicity (CTCAE). Quality of life (QoL-EPIC) was analyzed in a subset. At a median follow-up of 35 months (6 -134), 3 and 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) outcomes were 67% and 49%, respectively. At 5 years, fBT was associated with a 17% cumulative incidence of local failure (LF) outside the GTV (vs. 7.8% ibBT, p=0.14), while LF within the GTV occurred in 13% (vs. 16% ibBT, p=0.81). Predictors of LF outside fBT volumes included pre-salvage PSA>7 ng/mL (p=0.03) and interval since RT less than 5 years (p=0.04). No attributable grade 3 events occurred, and ibBT was associated with a higher rate of grade 2 toxicity (p<0.001), and trend towards a larger reduction in QoL sexual domain score (p=0.07), compared to fBT. A tumor-targeted HDR-BT salvage approach achieved favorable cancer control outcomes. While a fBT was associated with less toxicity, it may be best suited to a subgroup with lower PSA at later recurrence. Tumor targeted dose escalation may be warranted.
Sections du résumé
Background and purpose
Locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy merits an effective salvage strategy that mitigates the risk of adverse events. We report outcomes of a cohort enrolled across two institutions investigating MRI-guided tumor-targeted salvage high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT).
Materials and methods
Analysis of a prospective cohort of 88 patients treated across two institutions with MRI-guided salvage HDR-BT to visible local recurrence after radiotherapy (RT). Tumor target dose ranged from 22-26 Gy, using either an integrated boost (ibBT) or focal technique (fBT), delivered in two implants over a median of 7 days. Outcome metrics included cancer control and toxicity (CTCAE). Quality of life (QoL-EPIC) was analyzed in a subset.
Results
At a median follow-up of 35 months (6 -134), 3 and 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) outcomes were 67% and 49%, respectively. At 5 years, fBT was associated with a 17% cumulative incidence of local failure (LF) outside the GTV (vs. 7.8% ibBT, p=0.14), while LF within the GTV occurred in 13% (vs. 16% ibBT, p=0.81). Predictors of LF outside fBT volumes included pre-salvage PSA>7 ng/mL (p=0.03) and interval since RT less than 5 years (p=0.04). No attributable grade 3 events occurred, and ibBT was associated with a higher rate of grade 2 toxicity (p<0.001), and trend towards a larger reduction in QoL sexual domain score (p=0.07), compared to fBT.
Conclusion
A tumor-targeted HDR-BT salvage approach achieved favorable cancer control outcomes. While a fBT was associated with less toxicity, it may be best suited to a subgroup with lower PSA at later recurrence. Tumor targeted dose escalation may be warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36091157
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.971344
pmc: PMC9459480
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
971344Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Ménard, Navarro-Domenech, Liu, Joseph, Barkati, Berlin, Delouya, Taussky, Beauchemin, Nicolas, Kadoury, Rink, Raman, Sundaramurthy, Weersink, Beliveau-Nadeau, Helou and Chung.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 1;67(3):828-33
pubmed: 17161554
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Feb;29(2):391-7
pubmed: 19161194
Urol Oncol. 2014 Jul;32(5):701-6
pubmed: 24629499
Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Apr 15;10(2):106-118
pubmed: 32419979
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1009-1016
pubmed: 25308970
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 May 1;107(1):126-135
pubmed: 32006609
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2020 Dec 11;27:1-7
pubmed: 33364450
Eur Urol. 2021 Sep;80(3):280-292
pubmed: 33309278
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 Apr;32(4):259-265
pubmed: 31708350
J Urol. 1992 Mar;147(3 Pt 2):917-21
pubmed: 1538497
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Dec;141:156-163
pubmed: 31570236
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Apr;3(2):183-197
pubmed: 31411996
Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Dec;4(6):868-876
pubmed: 33582104
J Urol. 1991 Dec;146(6):1578-82
pubmed: 1942345
Eur Urol. 2021 Aug;80(2):142-146
pubmed: 33985797
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 May 12;5(5):965-977
pubmed: 33083660
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Jul 15;38(5):941-7
pubmed: 9276358
Urol Oncol. 2015 Feb;33(2):85-94
pubmed: 24768356
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Jul;76(1):11-7
pubmed: 15990187
Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Jun;7(3):414-435
pubmed: 30050801
Cancer. 2008 Jan 1;112(1):55-60
pubmed: 17968996
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Feb 1;103(2):335-343
pubmed: 30312717
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Aug;21(3):537-47
pubmed: 1869452
World J Urol. 2016 Nov;34(11):1521-1531
pubmed: 27012712
Clin Nucl Med. 2019 Oct;44(10):e566-e573
pubmed: 31283605