Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report PSA relapse-free survival and toxicity outcomes of prostate cancer patients who have undergone three-dimensional computer-optimized high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy as definitive treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:One hundred five patients consecutively treated between 1998 and 2004 are reported. All patients were treated with HDR boost with lr 192 (5.5-7.0 Gy), based upon postimplant CT three-dimensional treatment planning using an in-house treatment plan optimization algorithm. Three-dimensional conformal external beam radiotherapy (45-50.4 Gy) was also administered 3 weeks after the HDR procedure. Toxicity was measured using National Cancer Institutes Common Toxicity Criteria and International Prostate Symptom Score indices. RESULTS:With a median followup of 44 months (8-79 months), the 5-year PSA relapse-free survival outcomes for low, intermediate and high-risk patients were 100%, 98%, and 92%, respectively, Median urinary toxicity, and 93% of patients denied rectal problems at the time of last followup. Erectile dysfunction was noted in 47% patients at the time of last followup, but overall 80% were able to achieve vaginal penetration when those who responded to sildenafil were included. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Computer-optimized three-dimensional HDR prostate brachytherapy provides excellent disease control for even high risk localized prostate cancer. Significant toxicity has been minimal.

UNLABELLED:To evaluate the ability of granulocyte-stimulating factor to decrease mucositis during postoperative radiotherapy for stage II-IV squamous head and neck cancer in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS:After undergoing complete resection, patients were randomized to receive granulocyte-colony stimulating factor or placebo by daily subcutaneous injection during radiotherapy (63 Gy, 1.8 Gy/day). Patients undergoing prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was the need for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Severity of mucositis was a secondary outcome. RESULTS:Forty-one patients were enrolled (132 planned). The study closed after slow accrual. Patient characteristics were as follows (granulocyte-colony stimulating factor vs placebo): median age, 59 versus 54 years; pT4, 16% versus 23%; pN2/3, 68% versus 59%; stage IV, 79% versus 68%. Forty patients were evaluable for planned outcomes. Patients in the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor arm showed trends toward lower rates of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement (0% vs 14%, P = 0.2) and severity of mucositis (P = 0.13), and had shorter mean radiotherapy duration (48.4 +/- 4.32 days vs 51.6 +/- 1.84 days, P = 0.005). Overall survival was significantly greater in the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor arm (hazard ratio, 0.37; P = 0.037). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor during radiotherapy was feasible and led to significantly shorter radiotherapy duration and trends toward less percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement and mucositis. The unanticipated improvement in survival outcomes warrants further hypothesis-driven investigation and validation.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To study the use of the year of therapy as an independent predictor of outcomes, serving as a proxy for time-related changes in therapy and tumor factors in the treatment of prostate cancer. Accounting for these changes would facilitate the retrospective comparison of outcomes for patients treated in different periods. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Nine institutions combined data on 4,537 patients with Stages T1 and T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate who had a pretherapy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and biopsy Gleason score, and who had received > or = 60 Gy external beam radiotherapy without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation or planned adjuvant androgen deprivation. All patients were treated between 1986 and 1995. Two groups were defined: those treated before 1993 (Yr < or = 92) vs. 1993 and after (Yr > or = 93). Patients treated before 1993 had their follow-up truncated to make the follow-up time similar to that for patients treated in 1993 and after. Therefore, the median follow-up time was 6.0 years for both groups (Yr < or = 92 and Yr > or = 93). Two separate biochemical failure endpoints were used. Definition A consisted of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology endpoint (three PSA rises backdated, local failure, distant failure, or hormonal therapy). Definition B consisted of PSA level greater than the current nadir plus two, local failure, distant failure, or hormonal therapy administered. Multivariate analyses for factors affecting PSA disease-free survival (PSA-DFS) rates using both endpoints were performed for all cases using the following variables: T stage (T1b, T1c, T2a vs. T2b, T2c), pretreatment PSA (continuous variable), biopsy Gleason score (continuous variable), radiation dose (continuous variable), and year of treatment (continuous variable). The year variable (defined as the current year minus 1960) ranged from 26 to 35. To evaluate the effect of radiation dose, the multivariate analyses were repeated with the 3,897 cases who had received < 72 Gy using the same variables except for radiation dose. RESULTS:For all 4,537 patients, the 5- and 8-year PSA-DFS estimate using definition A (ASTRO consensus definition) was 60% and 55%, respectively. The 8-year PSA-DFS estimate for Yr < 93 vs. Yr > or = 93 was 52% vs. 57%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients receiving < 72 Gy, the 8-year PSA-DFS estimate for Yr < 93 vs. Yr > or = 93 was 52% and 55%, respectively (p = 0.004). The differences in PSA-DFS rates in the different subgroups were similar when definition B was used. The multivariate analyses for all 4,537 cases with either PSA-DFS definition revealed T stage (p < 0.001), pretherapy PSA level (p < 0.001), Gleason score (p < 0.001), radiation dose (p < 0.001), and year of treatment (p < 0.001) to be independent predictors of outcomes. The multivariate analyses restricted to the 3,897 cases receiving < 72 Gy still revealed year of treatment to be an independent predictor of outcomes (p < 0.001), in addition to T stage (p < 0.001), pretherapy PSA level (p < 0.001), and Gleason score (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Independent of tumor stage, radiation dose, failure definition, and follow-up parameters, the year in which RT was performed was an independent predictor of outcomes. These findings indicate a more favorable presentation of localized prostate cancer in current years that is not necessarily reflected in the patients' PSA levels or Gleason scores. This phenomenon is probably related to a combination of factors, such as screening, increased patient awareness leading to earlier biopsies and earlier diagnosis, more aggressive pretherapy staging, and unrecognized improvements in therapy, but perhaps also to changing tumor biology. Outcomes predictions should be based on contemporaneous series. Alternatively, the year of therapy could be incorporated as a variable in outcomes analyses of localized prostate cancer patients treated in different periods within the PSA era.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the correlations between observed clinical morbidity and dosimetric parameters for whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) for prostate cancer using either three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Between December 1996 and January 2002, 27 patients with prostate adenocarcinoma were treated with conformal WPRT as part of their definitive treatment. WPRT was delivered with 3D-CRT in 14 patients and with IMRT in 13 patients. For each of the patients treated with IMRT, optimized conventional two-dimensional (2D) and 3D-CRT plans were retrospectively generated for the whole pelvic phase of the treatment. Dose-volume histograms for the bowel, bladder, and rectum were compared for the three techniques. Acute toxicities were evaluated for all 27 patients, and late toxicities were evaluated for 25 patients with sufficient follow-up. Toxicities were scored according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group morbidity grading scales. Median follow-up was 30 months. RESULTS:Three-dimensional-CRT resulted in a 40% relative reduction (p < 0.001) in the volume of bowel receiving 45 Gy compared with 2D, and IMRT provided a further 60% reduction relative to 3D-CRT (p < 0.001). Compared with either 2D or 3D-CRT, IMRT reduced the volume of rectum receiving 45 Gy by 90% (p < 0.001). Overall, 9 patients (33%) experienced acute Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and only 1 of these patients was treated with IMRT. Antidiarrhea medication was required for 6 patients (22%). However, 5 of these 6 patients also received chemotherapy, and none were treated with IMRT. No Grade 3 or higher acute or late GI toxicities were observed. No cases of late radiation enteritis were observed. Acute and late genitourinary toxicity did not appear significantly increased by the addition of conformal WPRT. CONCLUSIONS:Compared to conventional 2D planning, conformal planning for WPRT resulted in significant reductions in the doses delivered to the bowel, rectum, and bladder. IMRT was superior to 3D-CRT in limiting the volume of bowel and rectum within high-dose regions. These dosimetric findings correlated with low rates of acute and late GI morbidity.

BACKGROUND:We revised our prostate cancer-specific measure to better address the physiologic complications of the 3 major therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer and to assess the impact of symptoms on broader aspects of patient functioning. The study used a cross-sectional design, and participants completed the measure in a clinical setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Participants underwent radical prostatectomy (n = 130), external beam radiation therapy (n = 120), or brachytherapy (n = 129). Their mean age was 66 years (standard deviation [SD], 8.2 years), and the median time since treatment was 12.36 months (mean, 21.7; SD, 25.4). Items were derived from previously validated instruments or developed based on the clinical experience of a multidisciplinary group of health professionals. RESULTS:The revised instrument included 46 items that formed 8 physiologic scales (2 urinary, 3 sexual, and 3 bowel function); 3 associated bother scales; and cancer worry, treatment regret, and treatment satisfaction scales. Correlations among scales provided evidence of convergent/divergent validity. Significant group differences were found using analysis of covariance (with time since treatment and age as covariates) on 6 of the 8 physiologic scales and on bowel bother and treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The instrument provides a sensitive measure of physiologic differences across the 3 primary treatment groups and indicates that there are few differences across treatment groups on broader aspects of health-related quality of life. Further development of the measure is recommended.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The combination of permanent low-dose-rate interstitial implantation (LDR-BRT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) has been used in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. While a high radiation dose is delivered to the prostate in this setting, the actual biologic dose equivalence compared to monotherapy is not commonly invoked. We describe methodology for obtaining the fused dosimetry of this combined treatment and assigning a dose equivalence which in turn can be used to develop desired normal tissue and target constraints for biologic-based treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Patients treated with this regimen initially receive an I-125 implant prescribed to 110 Gy followed, 2 months later, by 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions using intensity-modulated external beam radiotherapy. Ab initio methodology is described, using clinically derived biologic parameters (alpha, beta, potential doubling time for prostate cancer cells [T(pot)], cell loss factor), for calculating tumor control probability isoeffective doses for the combined LDR and conventional fraction EBRT treatment regimen. As no such formalism exists for assessing rectal or urethral toxicity, we make use of semi-empirical expressions proposed for describing urethral and rectal complication probabilities for specific treatment situations (LDR and fractionation, respectively) and utilize the notion of isoeffective dose to extend these results to combined LDR-EBRT regimens. RESULTS:The application to treatment planning of the methodology described in this study is illustrated with real-patient data. We evaluate the effect of changing LDR and EBRT prescription doses (in a manner that remains isoeffective with 81 Gy EBRT alone or with 144 Gy LDR monotherapy) on rectal and urethral complication probabilities, and suggest that it should be possible to improve the therapeutic ratio by exploiting joint LDR-EBRT planning. CONCLUSIONS:We describe new methodology for biologically based treatment planning for patients who receive combined low-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Using relevant mathematical tools, we demonstrate the feasibility of fusing dose distributions from each treatment for this combined regimen, which can then be expressed as isoeffective dose distributions. Based on this information, dose constraints for the rectum and urethra are described which could be used for planning such combination regimens.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Pooled data on 4,839 patients with T1-2 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (RT) alone at 9 institutions have previously provided long-term biochemical failure (BF) and clinical outcomes using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition. In this report we determined the sensitivity and specificity of several BF definitions using distant failure (DF) alone or clinical failure (CF), defined as local failure (LF) and/or DF. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The pooled cohort was treated between 1986 and 1995 with external beam RT (60 Gy or greater) without pre-RT androgen suppression or planned post-RT adjuvant androgen suppression. Median followup was 6.3 years. The sensitivity and specificity of 102 definitions of BF relative to DF and LF were assessed. RESULTS:The BF definitions with higher sensitivity and specificity than the ASTRO definition for DF only and CF are reported. The sensitivity and specificity of the ASTRO definition to predict DF alone was 55% and 68%, respectively. Three definitions had higher sensitivity and specificity, namely prostate specific antigen (PSA) greater than current nadir (lowest PSA prior to current measurement) plus 3 ng/ml (sensitivity 76% and specificity 72%), dated at the call (failure date as the date when the criterion was met), PSA greater than absolute nadir plus 2 ng/ml (sensitivity 72% and specificity 70%), dated at the call, or 2 consecutive increases of at least 0.5 ng/ml, back dated (sensitivity 69% and specificity 73%). The sensitivity and specificity of the ASTRO definition to predict CF was 60% and 72%, respectively. Three definitions had higher sensitivity and specificity, namely PSA greater than current nadir plus 3 ng/ml (sensitivity 66% and specificity 77%), dated at the call, PSA greater than absolute nadir plus 2 ng/ml (sensitivity 64% and specificity 74%), dated at the call, or 2 consecutive increases of at least 0.5 ng/ml, back dated (sensitivity 67% and specificity 78%). CONCLUSIONS:Using what is to our knowledge the largest data set of patients with prostate cancer treated with RT alone we correlated multiple definitions of BF with the strict clinical end points of DF alone and CF (DF or local failure). Defining BF as PSA greater than absolute nadir plus 2 ng/ml, dated at the call, PSA greater than current nadir plus 3 ng/ml, dated at the call, or 2 consecutive increases of at least 0.5 ng/ml, back dated, had higher sensitivity and specificity for DF alone or CF compared with the ASTRO definition. This information should contribute to the discussion regarding suggested modifications to the ASTRO definition of biochemical failure.