BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local re-treatment of radiorecurrent prostate cancer is potentially curative. However, the increased risk of severe toxicity may outweigh the opportunity of cancer control. This study aims to evaluate treatment-related toxicity from ultrafocal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and to investigate potential risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Toxicity data from 150 treated patients (July 2013-November 2019) was collected from a prospective registry. The treatment aim was to deliver a single dose of 19 Gy to the recurrent lesion as identified on multiparametric MRI and PET-CT. Treating physicians graded genitourinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity and erectile dysfunction (ED) using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 4.0, at baseline and during follow-up. Domains with substantial (≥10%) new-onset grade ≥ 2 toxicity were further evaluated using mixed effects logistic regression to find potential risk factors. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 20 months (IQR 12-31). Over time, new-onset grade 2 and 3 toxicity was recorded in 41% and 3% (GU), 5% and 0% (GI) and 22% and 15% (ED). While GI toxicity remained stably low, grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity and ED were seen twice as frequent in the late phase (>3 months after treatment). Significant risk factors for grade ≥ 2 toxicity were baseline GU toxicity (grade ≥ 2), baseline ED (grade ≥ 2), IPSS (cut-off ≥ 14) and urethral dose (D10%, cut-off ≥ 17 Gy). CONCLUSION: Ultrafocal salvage HDR-BT is a safe re-treatment option, especially in patients with a favorable symptom profile at baseline. Adherence to urethral dose constraints is important to avoid GU toxicity.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local re-treatment of radiorecurrent prostate cancer is potentially curative. However, the increased risk of severe toxicity may outweigh the opportunity of cancer control. This study aims to evaluate treatment-related toxicity from ultrafocal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and to investigate potential risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Toxicity data from 150 treated patients (July 2013-November 2019) was collected from a prospective registry. The treatment aim was to deliver a single dose of 19 Gy to the recurrent lesion as identified on multiparametric MRI and PET-CT. Treating physicians graded genitourinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity and erectile dysfunction (ED) using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 4.0, at baseline and during follow-up. Domains with substantial (≥10%) new-onset grade ≥ 2 toxicity were further evaluated using mixed effects logistic regression to find potential risk factors. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 20 months (IQR 12-31). Over time, new-onset grade 2 and 3 toxicity was recorded in 41% and 3% (GU), 5% and 0% (GI) and 22% and 15% (ED). While GI toxicity remained stably low, grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity and ED were seen twice as frequent in the late phase (>3 months after treatment). Significant risk factors for grade ≥ 2 toxicity were baseline GU toxicity (grade ≥ 2), baseline ED (grade ≥ 2), IPSS (cut-off ≥ 14) and urethral dose (D10%, cut-off ≥ 17 Gy). CONCLUSION: Ultrafocal salvage HDR-BT is a safe re-treatment option, especially in patients with a favorable symptom profile at baseline. Adherence to urethral dose constraints is important to avoid GU toxicity.
Authors: P Chitmanee; Y Tsang; H Tharmalingam; M Hamada; R Alonzi; P Ostler; R Hughes; G Lowe; P Hoskin Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Marieke Juliet van Son; Max Peters; Marinus A Moerland; Jan J W Lagendijk; Wietse S C Eppinga; Taimur T Shah; Hashim U Ahmed; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Juanita M Crook; Peixin Zhang; Thomas M Pisansky; Edouard J Trabulsi; Mahul B Amin; William Bice; Gerard Morton; Nadeem Pervez; Eric Vigneault; Charles Catton; Jeff Michalski; Mack Roach; David Beyer; Ashesh Jani; Eric Horwitz; Viroon Donavanik; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joyce G R Bomers; Christiaan G Overduin; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Erik B Cornel; Emile N J T van Lin; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Justin Ferdinandus; Johannes Czernin; Matthias Eiber; Robert R Flavell; Spencer C Behr; I-Wei K Wu; Courtney Lawhn-Heath; Miguel H Pampaloni; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Jeannine Gartmann; Vishnu Murthy; Roger Slavik; Peter R Carroll; Ken Herrmann; Jeremie Calais; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Marieke van Son; Max Peters; Marinus Moerland; Linda Kerkmeijer; Jan Lagendijk; Jochem van der Voort van Zyp Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Metha Maenhout; Max Peters; Marco van Vulpen; Marinus A Moerland; Richard P Meijer; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Paul L Nguyen; Steven J Frank; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-12-05