Neal Andruska1, Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck2, Ruben Carmona3, Temitope Agabalogun1, Randall J Brenneman1, Hiram A Gay1, Jeff M Michalski1, Brian C Baumann1,4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sylvester Cancer Center, University of Miami, Florida; and. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer currently recommend several definitive radiotherapy (RT) options for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer: external-beam RT (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost with or without ADT. However, brachytherapy alone with or without ADT is not well defined and is currently not recommended for UIR prostate cancer. We hypothesized that men treated with brachytherapy with or without ADT have comparable survival rates to men treated with EBRT with or without ADT. METHODS: A total of 31,783 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed from the National Cancer Database. Men were stratified into 4 groups: EBRT (n=12,985), EBRT plus ADT (n=12,960), brachytherapy (n=4,535), or brachytherapy plus ADT (n=1,303). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances, and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Relative to EBRT alone, the following treatments were associated with improved OS: EBRT plus ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P=.002), brachytherapy alone (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98; P=.01), and brachytherapy plus ADT (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P=.00006). Brachytherapy correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT in men who were not treated with ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P=.03) and in those receiving ADT (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P=.004). At 10-year follow-up, 56% and 63% of men receiving EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively, were alive (P<.0001). IPTW was used to determine the average treatment effect of definitive brachytherapy. Relative to EBRT, definitive brachytherapy correlated with improved OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P=.009) on weight-adjusted MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. The addition of ADT to both EBRT and definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS. These results suggest that definitive brachytherapy should be considered as an option for men with UIR prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer currently recommend several definitive radiotherapy (RT) options for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer: external-beam RT (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost with or without ADT. However, brachytherapy alone with or without ADT is not well defined and is currently not recommended for UIR prostate cancer. We hypothesized that men treated with brachytherapy with or without ADT have comparable survival rates to men treated with EBRT with or without ADT. METHODS: A total of 31,783 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed from the National Cancer Database. Men were stratified into 4 groups: EBRT (n=12,985), EBRT plus ADT (n=12,960), brachytherapy (n=4,535), or brachytherapy plus ADT (n=1,303). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances, and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Relative to EBRT alone, the following treatments were associated with improved OS: EBRT plus ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P=.002), brachytherapy alone (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98; P=.01), and brachytherapy plus ADT (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P=.00006). Brachytherapy correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT in men who were not treated with ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P=.03) and in those receiving ADT (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P=.004). At 10-year follow-up, 56% and 63% of men receiving EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively, were alive (P<.0001). IPTW was used to determine the average treatment effect of definitive brachytherapy. Relative to EBRT, definitive brachytherapy correlated with improved OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P=.009) on weight-adjusted MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. The addition of ADT to both EBRT and definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS. These results suggest that definitive brachytherapy should be considered as an option for men with UIR prostate cancer.
Authors: W James Morris; Scott Tyldesley; Sree Rodda; Ross Halperin; Howard Pai; Michael McKenzie; Graeme Duncan; Gerard Morton; Jeremy Hamm; Nevin Murray Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martin C Tom; Chandana A Reddy; Timothy D Smile; Ryan X Zhang; Jay P Ciezki; Kevin L Stephans; Omar Y Mian; Eric A Klein; Steven Campbell; James Ulchaker; Kenneth Angermeier; Rahul D Tendulkar Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Zaid A Siddiqui; Gary S Gustafson; Hong Ye; Alvaro A Martinez; Beth Mitchell; Evelyn Sebastian; Amy Limbacher; Daniel J Krauss Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ahmed E Abugharib; Robert T Dess; Payal D Soni; Vrinda Narayana; Cheryl Evans; Mohamed S Gaber; Felix Y Feng; Patrick W McLaughlin; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Alejandro Berlin; Fabio Y Moraes; Noelia Sanmamed; Rachel Glicksman; Alexander Koven; Osvaldo Espin-Garcia; Elton T T Leite; João L F Silva; Rafael Gadia; Michael Nesbitt; Charles N Catton; Samuel Kaffenberger; Simpa S Salami; Todd M Morgan; Jason W D Hearn; Will C Jackson; Rohit Mehra; Peter Chung; Neil E Fleshner; Zachary S Zumsteg; Robert T Dess; Felix Y Feng; Antonio Finelli; Daniel E Spratt Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michel Bolla; Philippe Maingon; Christian Carrie; Salvador Villa; Petros Kitsios; Philip M P Poortmans; Santhanam Sundar; Elzbieta M van der Steen-Banasik; John Armstrong; Jean-François Bosset; Fernanda G Herrera; Bradley Pieters; Annerie Slot; Amit Bahl; Rahamim Ben-Yosef; Dirk Boehmer; Christopher Scrase; Laurette Renard; Emad Shash; Corneel Coens; Alphonsus C M van den Bergh; Laurence Collette Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tom Pickles; Scott Tyldesley; Jeremy Hamm; Sean A Virani; W James Morris; Mira Keyes Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 7.038