Radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: a multicenter analysis evaluating tumor control and late toxicity after brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in 1293 patients.
Austria
HDR
Intermediate-risk
LDR
Low-risk
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2024
15 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
30
11
2023
accepted:
25
02
2024
medline:
15
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
15
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Comparing oncological outcomes and toxicity after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer using HDR- or LDR-mono-brachytherapy (BT), or conventionally (CF) or moderately hypofractionated (HF) external beam radiotherapy. Retrospectively, patients with low- (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer treated between 03/2000 and 09/2022 in two centers were included. Treatment was performed using either CF with total doses between 74 and 78 Gy, HF with 2.4-2.6 Gy per fraction in 30 fractions, or LDR- or HDR-BT. Biochemical control (BC) according to the Phoenix criteria, and late gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to RTOG/EORTC criteria were assessed. We identified 1293 patients, 697 with LR and 596 with IR prostate cancer. Of these, 470, 182, 480, and 161 were treated with CF, HF, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT, respectively. For BC, we did not find a significant difference between treatments in LR and IR (p = 0.31 and 0.72). The 5‑year BC for LR was between 93 and 95% for all treatment types. For IR, BC was between 88% in the CF and 94% in the HF group. For CF and HF, maximum GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 was between 22 and 27%. For LDR-BT, we observed 67% grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Maximum GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 9%. For HDR-BT, we observed 1% GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity and 19% GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity. All types of therapy were effective and well received. HDR-BT caused the least late toxicities, especially GI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Comparing oncological outcomes and toxicity after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer using HDR- or LDR-mono-brachytherapy (BT), or conventionally (CF) or moderately hypofractionated (HF) external beam radiotherapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Retrospectively, patients with low- (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer treated between 03/2000 and 09/2022 in two centers were included. Treatment was performed using either CF with total doses between 74 and 78 Gy, HF with 2.4-2.6 Gy per fraction in 30 fractions, or LDR- or HDR-BT. Biochemical control (BC) according to the Phoenix criteria, and late gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to RTOG/EORTC criteria were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 1293 patients, 697 with LR and 596 with IR prostate cancer. Of these, 470, 182, 480, and 161 were treated with CF, HF, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT, respectively. For BC, we did not find a significant difference between treatments in LR and IR (p = 0.31 and 0.72). The 5‑year BC for LR was between 93 and 95% for all treatment types. For IR, BC was between 88% in the CF and 94% in the HF group. For CF and HF, maximum GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 was between 22 and 27%. For LDR-BT, we observed 67% grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Maximum GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 9%. For HDR-BT, we observed 1% GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity and 19% GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
All types of therapy were effective and well received. HDR-BT caused the least late toxicities, especially GI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38488901
doi: 10.1007/s00066-024-02222-w
pii: 10.1007/s00066-024-02222-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
AWMF, “Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 6.2, 2021, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL,” 2021.
Hamdy FC et al (2023) Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 388(17):1547–1558. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2214122
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2214122
pubmed: 36912538
Timilshina N et al (2021) Factors associated with discontinuation of active surveillance among men with low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based study. J Urol 206(4):903–913. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000001903
doi: 10.1097/ju.0000000000001903
pubmed: 34412510
Wiegel T et al (2021) Results of a randomized trial of treatment modalities in patients with low or early-intermediate risk prostate cancer (PREFERE trial). J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 147(1):235–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03327-2
doi: 10.1007/s00432-020-03327-2
pubmed: 32886212
Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D (2023) NCCN guidelines version 4.2023 prostate cancer https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4557-2865-7.00084-9
doi: 10.1016/B978-1-4557-2865-7.00084-9
Moll M, Paschen C, Zaharie A, Berndl F, Goldner G (2020) Treatment of low-risk prostate cancer: a retrospective study with 477 patients comparing external beam radiotherapy and I‑125 seeds brachytherapy in terms of biochemical control and late side effects. Strahlenther Onkol 197(2):118–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-020-01657-1
doi: 10.1007/s00066-020-01657-1
pubmed: 32642874
pmcid: 7840646
Menzel H‑G (2010) ICRU report 83 prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vol 15, pp 1–2 https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru_ndy011
doi: 10.1093/jicru_ndy011
Allisy A (1993) ICRU report 50 prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy
Allisy A (1999) ICRU report 62 prescribring, recording and reporting photon beam therapy. Supplement to ICRU Report 50
Wachter S et al (2002) The influence of a rectal balloon tube as internal immobilization device on variations of volumes and dose-volume histograms during treatment course of conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52(1):91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01821-1
doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01821-1.
pubmed: 11777626
Nath R et al (2009) AAPM recommendations on dose prescription and reporting methods for permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Report of Task Group 137. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3246613
Kovács G et al (2005) GEC/ESTRO-EAU recommendations on temporary brachytherapy using stepping sources for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 74(2):137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2004.09.004
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.09.004
pubmed: 15734201
Hoskin PJ et al (2013) GEC/ESTRO recommendations on high dose rate afterloading brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer: an update. Radiother Oncol 107(3):325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.002
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.002
pubmed: 23773409
Roach M et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(4):965–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
pubmed: 16798415
Cox JD, Stetz J, Pajak TF (1995) Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC). Int J Radiat Oncol 31(5):1341–1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00060-C
doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(95)00060-C
Hoffman KE et al (2020) Patient-reported outcomes through 5 years for active surveillance, surgery, brachytherapy, or external beam radiation with or without androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 323(2):149–163. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.20675
doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.20675
pubmed: 31935027
pmcid: 6990712
Morris WJ et al (2017) Androgen suppression combined with elective nodal and dose escalated radiation therapy (the ASCENDE-RT trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate Brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated external beam boost f. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 98(2):275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.026
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.026
pubmed: 28262473
Tharmalingam H et al (2020) Single dose high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) as monotherapy for localised prostate cancer: early results of a UK national cohort study. Radiother Oncol 143:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.12.017
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.12.017
pubmed: 32044166
Correa RJM et al (2022) Two-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) versus two-fraction high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: does dose heterogeneity matter? Radiother Oncol 169:51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.007
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.007
pubmed: 35151715
Tsang YM et al (2021) Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy for low- and intermediate risk prostate cancer: high-dose-rate brachytherapy vs stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 158:184–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.02.028
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.02.028
pubmed: 33639192
Morgan TM et al (2018) Brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer in the modern era: a comparison of patient-reported quality of life outcomes among different techniques. J Contemp Brachytherapy 10(6):495–502. https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2018.81024
doi: 10.5114/jcb.2018.81024
pubmed: 30662471
pmcid: 6335553
Morton G et al (2020) Prostate high dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer: efficacy results from a randomized phase II clinical trial of one fraction of 19 Gy or two fractions of 13.5 Gy. Radiother Oncol 146:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.009
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.009
pubmed: 32146259
Corkum M et al (2021) Prostate high dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer: late toxicity and patient reported outcomes from a randomized phase II clinical trial. Radiother Oncol 156:160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.12.021
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.12.021
pubmed: 33359269
Yamazaki H et al (2018) Comparison of three moderate fractionated schedules employed in high-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 129(2):370–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.07.026
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.07.026
pubmed: 30190166
Henry A, Pieters BR, Siebert FA, Hoskin P (2022) GEC-ESTRO ACROP prostate brachytherapy guidelines. Radiother Oncol 167:244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.047
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.047
pubmed: 34999134
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie (2021) Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 6.0, 2021, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=6EduY9K1iK09VZIlf8dOvGrff8piCbbjGVH9Qi0SqOo . Accessed 16 June 2021
Dearnaley D et al (2016) Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5‑year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4
pubmed: 27339115
pmcid: 4961874
Kerkmeijer LGW et al (2021) Focal boost to the Intraprostatic tumor in external beam radiotherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer: results from the FLAME randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 39(7):787–796. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02873
doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02873
pubmed: 33471548
Russell NS, Knaken H, Bruinvis IAD, Hart AAM, Begg AC, Lebesque JV (1994) Quantification of patient to patient variation of skin erythema developing as a response to radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 30(3):213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8140(94)90460-X
doi: 10.1016/0167-8140(94)90460-X
pubmed: 8209004