Dataset Information

Does the sequence of high-dose rate brachytherapy boost and IMRT for prostate cancer impact early toxicity outcomes? Results from a single institution analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We present the first report comparing early toxicity outcomes with high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost upfront versus intensity modulated RT (IMRT) upfront combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as definitive management for intermediate risk or higher prostate cancer.

Methods and materials

We reviewed all non-metastatic prostate cancer patients who received HDR-BT boost from 2014 to 2019. HDR-BT boost was offered to patients with intermediate-risk disease or higher. ADT use and IMRT target volume was based on NCCN risk group. IMRT dose was typically 45 Gy in 25 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles ± pelvic lymph nodes. HDR-BT dose was 15 Gy in 1 fraction, delivered approximately 3 weeks before or after IMRT. The sequence was based on physician preference. Biochemical recurrence was defined per ASTRO definition. Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicity was graded per CTCAE v5.0. Pearson Chi-squared test and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare toxicity rates. P-value < 0.05 was significant.

Results

Fifty-eight received HDR-BT upfront (majority 2014-2016) and 57 IMRT upfront (majority 2017-2018). Median follow-up was 26.0 months. The two cohorts were well-balanced for baseline patient/disease characteristics and treatment factors. There were differences in treatment sequence based on the year in which patients received treatment. Overall, rates of grade 3 or higher GI or GU toxicity were <1%. There was no significant difference in acute or late GI or GU toxicity between the two groups.

Conclusion

We found no significant difference in GI/GU toxicity in intermediate-risk or higher prostate cancer patients receiving HDR-BT boost upfront versus IMRT upfront combined with ADT. These findings suggest that either approach may be reasonable. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate late toxicity and long-term disease control.

SUBMITTER: Roy A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8182264 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Registering CTs for patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with a boost dose from high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) can be challenging due to considerable image discrepancies (e.g. rectal fillings, HDR needles, HDR artefacts and HDR rectal packing materials). This study is the first to comparatively evaluate image processing and registration methods used to register the rectums in EBRT and HDR CTs of prostate cancer patients. The focus is on the rectum due to planned future analysis of rectal dose-volume response.For 64 patients, the EBRT CT was retrospectively registered to the HDR CT with rigid registration and non-rigid registration methods in VelocityAI. Image processing was undertaken on the HDR CT and the rigidly-registered EBRT CT to reduce the impact of discriminating features on alternative non-rigid registration methods applied in the software suite for Deformable Image Registration and Adaptive Radiotherapy Research (DIRART) using the Horn-Schunck optical flow and Demons algorithms. The propagated EBRT-rectum structures were compared with the HDR structure using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD) and average surface distance (ASD). The image similarity was compared using mutual information (MI) and root mean squared error (MSE). The displacement vector field was assessed via the Jacobian determinant (JAC). The post-registration alignments of rectums for 21 patients were visually assessed.The greatest improvement in the median DSC relative to the rigid registration result was 35 % for the Horn-Schunck algorithm with image processing. This algorithm also provided the best ASD results. The VelocityAI algorithms provided superior HD, MI, MSE and JAC results. The visual assessment indicated that the rigid plus deformable multi-pass method within VelocityAI resulted in the best rectum alignment.The DSC, ASD and HD improved significantly relative to the rigid registration result if image processing was applied prior to DIRART non-rigid registrations, whereas VelocityAI without image processing provided significant improvements. Reliance on a single rectum structure-correspondence metric would have been misleading as the metrics were inconsistent with one another and visual assessments. It was important to calculate metrics for a restricted region covering the organ of interest. Overall, VelocityAI generated the best registrations for the rectum according to the visual assessment, HD, MI, MSE and JAC results.