128 poster: Outcome of Fractionated HDR Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) for Localized Prostate Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. S47
Author(s):  
M. Jolicoeur ◽  
N. Benoît ◽  
S. David ◽  
T.V. Nguyen ◽  
F. Saad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy

Rectal toxicity results for patients treated with HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy versus dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Author(s):  
Jacob Samuel Parzen ◽  
Hong Ye ◽  
Gary S. Gustafson ◽  
Alvaro Martinez ◽  
Evelyn Sebastian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Rectal Bleeding ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy ◽  
Rectal Toxicity ◽  
Rectal Pain

5 Background: We present a large retrospective analysis comparing rectal toxicity following high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy as monotherapy relative to dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer. Methods: 2683 patients treated with HDR or EBRT between 1994 and 2017 were included. 545 (20.3%) received HDR and 2138 (79.7%) EBRT. HDR fractionation was 38 Gy/4 fractions (n=321), 24 Gy/2 (n=96), or 27 Gy/2 (n=128). EBRT patients received a median dose of 75.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions [range 70.2-82.8 Gy], using either 3D conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). All EBRT patients underwent 3D image guidance via an off-line adaptive process. Treatment was directed to prostate only (n=780) or prostate and seminal vesicles (n=1351). No nodal therapy was given. Target volume for HDR patients included the prostate with no expansion. Acute and chronic gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was defined as occurring ≤ 6 and > 6 months, respectively, after radiotherapy and was graded per CTCAE version 3.0. Toxicity variables were analyzed with χ2 test. Results: Median follow-up was 7.5 years (7.4 years for EBRT and 7.9 years for HDR). 69.1% of EBRT patients received IMRT with the remainder treated using 3D conformal technique. Compared to EBRT, HDR was associated with decreased rates of acute grade ≥ 2 diarrhea (0.7% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), rectal pain/tenesmus (0.6% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.001), and rectal bleeding (0% vs. 1.6%, p=0.001). Rates of chronic grade ≥ 2 rectal bleeding (1.3% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) and radiation proctitis (0.9% vs. 3.3%, p=0.001) favored HDR over EBRT. Rates of any chronic rectal toxicity grade ≥ 2 were 2.4% vs. 10.5% (p < 0.001) for HDR vs. EBRT, respectively. For the 1478 EBRT patients treated with IMRT, acute and chronic rates of any grade ≥ 2GI toxicity were 4.2% and 5.6%, respectively, compared to 1.5% (p=0.002) and 2.4% (p=0.002), respectively, for HDR patients. Conclusions: In appropriately selected patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive radiation therapy, HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective strategy for reducing acute and chronic rectal toxicity.

Timing of high-dose rate brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy in intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer (THEPCA) patients and its effects on toxicity and quality of life: Results of a randomized feasibility trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Imtiaz Ahmed ◽  
Sharon Shibu Thomas ◽  
Alexander Cain ◽  
Jufen Zhang ◽  
Sreekanth Palvai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy

236 Background: Advances in brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and image-guided radiotherapy have revolutionized radiotherapy delivery. Acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities remain a significant issue. Currently there is no European consensus on the timing of high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy in relation to EBRT. Schedules of HDR boost before or after EBRT vary significantly between institutions.The incidence of GI and GU toxicities was assessed in patients receiving HDR brachytherapy before and after EBRT. Methods: Men with Intermediate/high risk localized prostate cancer were randomized to Arm A (HDR brachytherapy before EBRT) or Arm B (HDR brachytherapy after EBRT). Both arms received a HDR boost of 15Gy and 46Gy in 23 fractions of EBRT. All patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for up to 2 years. Patients were followed quarterly up to a year. CTCAE scores for GU and GI toxicities were taken. IPSS, IEFL and FACT-P scores were collected. Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze the association between GU and GI toxicities. The T-test compared the mean differences in IPSS total scores at each follow-up. Analysis of variance evaluated the difference at follow up. Post-hoc testing and Bonferroni correction was applied. Results: 100 patients were randomized between 2015 and 2017. Data for 88 patients was available at cutoff. Mean age was 69 years (SD: 4.6). Age, Gleason score, TNM and clinical staging were similar in each arm. Mean IPSS Score was similar between both arms at baseline Arm A (6.52) & Arm B (6.57). 12 months follow up showed mild worsening of symptoms in both arms, but no significant difference noticed between Arm A (8.02) & Arm B (8.14) p=0.55. At 12 months, Grade 1 and 2 GU toxicities were more frequent in Arm A (22.88% & 5.28%, p=0.669) compared to Arm B (19.36% and 2.64%, p=0.485). Grade 1 GI toxicity was more common in Arm B (23.76%) than Arm A (21.2%), p=0.396. Grade 2 GI toxicities were more common in Arm A 5.28% vs 3.52%, p=0.739. Baseline mean IIEF scores were 10.9 and 10.53 in Arm A and B respectively. At 12 months this was 6.6 in Arm A and 7.11 in Arm B, but not statistically significant. FACT-P scores were not different in either arm, with good QOL scores maintained throughout. Mean score at baseline (125.18) was observed to be similar at 12 months follow up at (126.10). The PTV, CTV & OAR dose were compared and no significant differences were found. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in GI and GU related toxicities up to a year between patients receiving HDR brachytherapy before or after EBRT. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms with good QOL scores. Longer follow up and a phase III multicenter RCT would be needed to validate findings. Clinical trial information: NCT02618161.

Combined HDR brachytherapy boost plus external beam radiotherapy by IMRT versus external beam radiotherapy alone IMRT in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: Dosimetric analysis from a randomized control trial.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 134-134
Author(s):  
Manikandan Annamalai ◽  
Laviraj MA ◽  
Haresh Kunhiparambath ◽  
Dayanand Sharma ◽  
Subhash Gupta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy ◽  
Rectal Volume

134 Background: Dose escalation by IMRT or brachytherapy significantly improves biochemical control in localized prostate cancer. In this prospective randomized study we compared dose conformity between two modalities HDR brachytherapy and IMRT to deliver a boost to the prostate after External beam Radiotherapy (EBRT). Methods: 20 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomized to receive IMRT alone or IMRT plus brachytherapy. After randomization, all patients received EBRT 45Gy/25#/5 weeks by IMRT in phase I. In phase II patients received either HDR brachytherapy 19Gy/2# (Arm A) or EBRT 29Gy/15#/3weeks (Arm B) and EQD2–DVH parameters were calculated for comparison. EQD2 was calculated with α/β ratio of 1.5Gy and 3Gy for prostate & 3Gy for rectum and bladder. Results: The median age, stage distribution, Gleason score, PSA and prostate volume of the cohort were 69.5 years, T2b–T3b, 7, 38.5ng/ml and 47.4cc respectively.The HDR BT delivered higher mean doses to PTV. In phase II, HDR BT vs IMRT the mean EQD2 for 95% of prostate volume, 33% of rectal volume was 45.7Gy vs 28.4Gy, 6.8Gy vs 17.4 Gy respectively; Dmean of rectum and bladder was 7.4 Gy vs 13.5Gy and 5.4Gy vs 12.7Gy respectively. Conclusions: HDR BT produced more conformal plan and lower OAR doses than IMRT. Dose escalation for prostate tumors by HDR BT may be preferred as easily achievable. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Addition of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy or Brachytherapy Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (26) ◽  
pp. 3024-3031 ◽  
Author(s):  
William C. Jackson ◽  
Holly E. Hartman ◽  
Robert T. Dess ◽  
Sam R. Birer ◽  
Payal D. Soni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Brachytherapy Boost ◽  
Meta Analyses

PURPOSE In men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or a brachytherapy boost (BT) to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been shown to improve various oncologic end points. Practice patterns indicate that those who receive BT are significantly less likely to receive ADT, and thus we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the predicted outcomes of a randomized trial of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review identified published randomized trials comparing EBRT with or without ADT, or EBRT (with or without ADT) with or without BT, that reported on overall survival (OS). Standard fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjust for use and duration of ADT. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. Bayesian analyses were also performed, and a rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses to create a surface under the cumulative ranking curve. RESULTS Six trials compared EBRT with or without ADT (n = 4,663), and 3 compared EBRT with or without BT (n = 718). The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81]), whereas the addition of BT did not significantly improve OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.36]). In a network meta-analysis, EBRT plus ADT had improved OS compared with EBRT plus BT (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]). Bayesian modeling demonstrated an 88% probability that EBRT plus ADT resulted in superior OS compared with EBRT plus BT. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that current practice patterns of omitting ADT with EBRT plus BT may result in inferior OS compared with EBRT plus ADT in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. ADT for these men should remain a critical component of treatment regardless of radiotherapy delivery method until randomized evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document