Combination External Beam Radiation and Brachytherapy Boost With Androgen Suppression for Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results of CALGB 99809

Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.89). 12/2011; 117(24):5579-88. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26203
Source: PubMed


Combined transperineal prostate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is widely used for treatment of prostate cancer. Long-term efficacy and toxicity results of a multicenter phase 2 trial assessing combination of EBRT and transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer are presented.
Intermediate-risk patients per Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center/National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria received 6 months of ADT, and 45 grays (Gy) EBRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles, followed by transperineal prostate brachytherapy with I125 (100 Gy) or Pd103 (90 Gy). Toxicity was graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group late radiation morbidity scoring systems. Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as time from enrollment to progression (biochemical, local, distant, or prostate cancer death). In addition to the protocol definition of biochemical failure (3 consecutive prostate-specific antigen rises>1.0 ng/mL after 18 months from treatment start), the 1997 American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus and Phoenix definitions were also assessed in defining DFS. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate DFS and overall survival.
Sixty-one of 63 enrolled patients were eligible. Median follow-up was 73 months. Late grade 2 and 3 toxicity, excluding sexual dysfunction, occurred in 20% and 3% of patients. Six-year DFS applying the protocol definition, 1997 ASTRO consensus, and Phoenix definitions was 87.1%, 75.1%, and 84.9%. Six deaths occurred; only 1 was attributed to prostate cancer. Six-year overall survival was 96.1%.
In a cooperative setting, combination of EBRT and transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost plus ADT resulted in excellent DFS with acceptable late toxicity for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Download full-text


Available from: Mark D. Hurwitz,
  • Source
    • "With regard to toxicity, HDR-BT boost was hypothesized to have a dose distribution that would better conform to the target and spare healthy organs, thus minimizing toxicity. Compared to historical data, HDR-BT boost RTOG late toxicity appears similar to LDR-BT monotherapy [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] or LDR-BT boost [17] [18], and decreased compared to EBRT [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (Fig. 4). In direct comparisons (Table 4), toxicity reports are inconsistent; whether this is due to the EBRT portion of the therapy or dose is unclear. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies of dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) have shown excellent rates of tumor control and cancer specific survival. Moreover, LDR-BT combined with EBRT (i.e. "LDR-BT boost") is hypothesized to improve local control. While phase II trials with LDR-BT boost have produced mature data of outcomes and toxicities, high dose rate (HDR)-BT has been growing in popularity as an alternative boost therapy. Boost from HDR-BT has theoretical advantages over LDR-BT, including improved cancer cell death and better dose distribution from customization of catheter dwell times, locations, and inverse dose optimization. Freedom from biochemical failure rates at five years for low-, intermediate-, high-risk, and locally advanced patients have generally been 85-100%, 80-98%, 59-96%, and 34-85%, respectively. Late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4 toxicities have also been encouraging with <6% of patients experiencing any toxicity. Limitations of current HDR-BT boost studies include reports of only single-institution experiences, and unrefined reports of toxicity or patient quality of life. Comparative effectiveness research will help guide clinicians in selecting the most appropriate treatment option for individual patients based on risk-stratification, expected outcomes, toxicities, quality of life, and cost.
    Cancer Treatment Reviews 10/2013; 40(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.10.006 · 7.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To evaluate the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score, a RNA signature based on the average expression level of 31 CCP genes, for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) in men with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) as their primary curative therapy. Methods and materials: The CCP score was derived retrospectively from diagnostic biopsy specimens of men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1991 to 2006 (n=141). All patients were treated with definitive EBRT; approximately half of the cohort was African American. Outcome was time from EBRT to BCR using the Phoenix definition. Median follow-up for patients without BCR was 4.8 years. Association with outcome was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards survival analysis and likelihood ratio tests. Results: Of 141 patients, 19 (13%) had BCR. The median CCP score for patient samples was 0.12. In univariable analysis, CCP score significantly predicted BCR (P=.0017). The hazard ratio for BCR was 2.55 for 1-unit increase in CCP score (equivalent to a doubling of gene expression). In a multivariable analysis that included Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen, percent positive cores, and androgen deprivation therapy, the hazard ratio for CCP changed only marginally and remained significant (P=.034), indicating that CCP provides prognostic information that is not provided by standard clinical parameters. With 10-year censoring, the CCP score was associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality (P=.013). There was no evidence for interaction between CCP and any clinical variable, including ethnicity. Conclusions: Among men treated with EBRT, the CCP score significantly predicted outcome and provided greater prognostic information than was available with clinical parameters. If validated in a larger cohort, CCP score could identify high-risk men undergoing EBRT who may need more aggressive therapy.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 06/2013; 86(5). DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.04.043 · 4.26 Impact Factor

  • Brachytherapy 08/2013; 12(5). DOI:10.1016/j.brachy.2013.07.004 · 2.76 Impact Factor
Show more