Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Keyes, Mira.
To determine whether the use of 6 months' adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with brachytherapy for intermediate-risk (IR) and low-risk (LR) prostate cancer is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death.
Purpose: To report the genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity and erectile dysfunction in a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: ASCENDE-RT (Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy) enrolled 398 men, median age 68 years, who were then randomized to either a standard arm that included 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. At clinic visits, investigators recorded GU and GI morbidity and information on urinary continence, catheter use, and erectile function. Exclusion of 15 who received nonprotocol treatment and correction of 14 crossover events left 195 men who actually received a DE-EBRT boost and 188, an LDR-PB boost. Median follow-up was 6.5 years. Results: The LDR-PB boost increased the risk of needing temporary catheterization and/or requiring incontinence pads. At 5 years the cumulative incidence of grade 3 GU events was 18.4% for LDR-PB, versus 5.2% for DE-EBRT (P<.001). Compared with the cumulative incidence, the 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GU morbidity was substantially lower for both arms (8.6% vs 2.2%, P=.058). The 5-year cumulative incidence of grade 3 GI events was 8.1% for LDR-PB, versus 3.2% for DE-EBRT (P=.124). The 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GI toxicity was lower than the cumulative incidence for both arms (1.0% vs 2.2%, respectively). Among men reporting adequate baseline erections, 45% of LDR-PB patients reported similar erectile function at 5 years, versus 37% after DE-EBRT (P=.30). Conclusions: The incidence of acute and late GU morbidity was higher after LDR-PB boost, and there was a nonsignificant trend for worse GI morbidity. No differences in the frequency of erectile dysfunction were observed.
Objectives: This study examined patterns of recurrence after low–dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB), estimated local recurrence rate and compared that rate to the estimated local recurrence rate after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods and Materials: A prospective database was maintained with clinical, dosimetric, and outcome data for all LDR-PB implantation procedures performed at our institution. From 1998 to 2008, 2223 patients with prostate cancer received LDR-PB without supplemental external beam radiation therapy. Patients who developed Phoenix-defined biochemical failure were reviewed for sites of relapse and investigations completed. Results: At a median follow-up of 5 years, 108 of 2223 patients (4.8%) developed biochemical relapse. In 1 additional patient, local relapse was found on transurethral prostate resection, but his prostate-specific antigen concentration was well short of triggering Phoenix-defined failure. Of the 109 patients with disease relapse, 18 of 2223 (0.8%) had a proven local recurrence, and 30 of 2223 (1.3%) had a proven distant recurrence. The remaining 61 of 2223 patients (2.7%) had unidentified sites of recurrence; of these, 57 patients (93%) had digital rectal examinations (DREs), 18 (30%) had post-treatment biopsies, 45 (74%) had bone scans, and 34 (56%) had computed tomography imaging of the abdomen and pelvis. If every biochemical failure were local, the local recurrence rate would be as high as 4.9%; however, by excluding those with proven distant failure and those with both a negative DRE and biopsy, we estimate that the local recurrence rate is 2.7% or less. Conclusions: In the context of limitations of the study design, our population-based analysis indicates that the local recurrence rate after LDR-PB is as low or lower than that after RP in our jurisdiction.
Purpose: To compare the second malignancy incidence in prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy (BT) relative to radical prostatectomy (RP) and to compare both groups with the cancer incidence in the general population. Methods and Materials: From 1998 to 2010, 2418 patients were treated with Iodine 125 prostate BT monotherapy at the British Columbia Cancer Agency, and 4015 referred patients were treated with RP. Cancer incidence was compared with the age-matched general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Pelvic malignancies included invasive and noninvasive bladder cancer and rectal cancer. Cox multivariable analysis was performed with adjustment for covariates to determine whether treatment (RP vs BT) was associated with second malignancy risk. Results: The median age at BT was 66 years and at RP 62 years. The SIR comparing BT patients with the general population was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.22) for second malignancy and was 1.53 (95% CI 1.12-2.04) for pelvic malignancy. The SIR comparing RP patients with the general population was 1.11 (95% CI 0.98-1.25) for second malignancy and was 1.11 (95% CI 0.82-1.48) for pelvic malignancy. On multivariable analysis, older age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05) and smoking (HR 1.65) were associated with increased second malignancy risk (P<.0001). Radical prostatectomy was not associated with a decreased second malignancy risk relative to BT (HR 0.90, P=.43), even when excluding patients who received postprostatectomy external beam radiation therapy (HR 1.13, P=.25). Older age (HR 1.09, P<.0001) and smoking (HR 2.17, P=.0009) were associated with increased pelvic malignancy risk. Radical prostatectomy was not associated with a decreased pelvic malignancy risk compared with BT (HR 0.57, P=.082), even when excluding postprostatectomy external beam radiation therapy patients (HR 0.87, P=.56). Conclusions: After adjustment for covariates, BT patients did not have an increased second malignancy risk compared with RP patients. Further follow-up of this cohort is needed given the potential latency of radiation-induced malignancies.
Purpose: To design and implement a unique training program that uses a phantom-based simulator to teach the process of prostate brachytherapy (PB) quality assurance and improve the quality of education. Methods and Materials: Trainees in our simulator program were practicing radiation oncologists, radiation oncology residents, and fellows of the American Brachytherapy Society. The program emphasized 6 core areas of quality assurance: patient selection, simulation, treatment planning, implant technique, treatment evaluation, and outcome assessment. Using the Iodine 125 ({sup 125}I) preoperative treatment planning technique, trainees implanted their ultrasound phantoms with dummy seeds (ie, seeds with no activity). Pre- and postimplant dosimetric parameters were compared and correlated using regression analysis. Results: Thirty-one trainees successfully completed the simulator program during the period under study. The mean phantom prostate size, number of seeds used, and total activity were generally consistent between trainees. All trainees met the V100 >95% objective both before and after implantation. Regardless of the initial volume of the prostate phantom, trainees' ability to cover the target volume with at least 100% of the dose (V100) was not compromised (R=0.99 pre- and postimplant). However, the V150 had lower concordance (R=0.37) and may better reflect heterogeneity control of the implant process. Conclusions: Analysis of implants from this phantom-based simulator shows a high degree of consistency between trainees and uniformly high-quality implants with respect to parameters used in clinical practice. This training program provides a valuable educational opportunity that improves the quality of PB training and likely accelerates the learning curve inherent in PB. Prostate phantom implantation can be a valuable first step in the acquisition of the required skills to safely perform PB.
Purpose: To determine late urinary toxicity (>12 months) in a large cohort of uniformly treated low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy patients. Methods and Materials: From 1998 to 2009, 2709 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network–defined low-risk and low-tier intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with Iodine 125 ({sup 125}I) low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy; 2011 patients with a minimum of 25 months of follow-up were included in the study. Baseline patients, treatment, implant factors, and late urinary toxicity (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] grading system and International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) were recorded prospectively. Time to IPSS resolution, late RTOG genitourinary toxicity was examined with Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression was done for individual covariates and multivariable models. Results: Median follow-up was 54.5 months (range, 2-13 years). Actuarial toxicity rates reached 27% and 10% (RTOG ≥2 and ≥3, respectively) at 9-13 years. Symptoms resolved quickly in the majority of patients (88% in 6-12 months). The prevalence of RTOG 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 toxicity with a minimum of 7 years' follow-up was 70%, 21%, 6.4%, 2.3%, and 0.08%, respectively. Patients with a larger prostate volume, higher baseline IPSS, higher D90, acute toxicity, and age >70 years had more late RTOG ≥2 toxicity (all P≤.02). The IPSS resolved slower in patients with lower baseline IPSS and larger ultrasound prostate volume, those not receiving androgen deprivation therapy, and those with higher D90. The crude rate of RTOG 3 toxicity was 6%. Overall the rate of transurethral resection of the prostate was 1.9%; strictures, 2%; incontinence, 1.3%; severe symptoms, 1.8%; late catheterization, 1.3%; and hematuria, 0.8%. The majority (80%) resolved their symptoms in 6-12 months. Conclusion: Long-term urinary toxicity after brachytherapy is low. Although actuarial rates increase with longer follow-up (27% RTOG 2 and 10% RTOG 3 at 13 years), symptoms resolve relatively quickly; between 5 and 13 years' follow-up, >90% of patients have minimal urinary toxicity. Refining patient selection criteria, planning, and treatment delivery may further reduce toxicity.
Purpose: Optimal local management for young women with early-stage breast cancer remains controversial. This study examined 15-year outcomes among women younger than 40 years treated with breast-conserving surgery plus whole-breast radiation therapy (BCT) compared with those treated with modified radical mastectomy (MRM). Methods and Materials: Women aged 20 to 39 years with early-stage breast cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2003 were identified in a population-based database. Primary outcomes of breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS), overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes of local relapse–free survival (LRFS), locoregional relapse–free survival (LRRFS), and distant relapse–free survival (DRFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between BCT and MRM cohorts using log-rank tests. A planned subgroup analysis was performed on patients considered “ideal” for BCT (ie, T1N0, negative margins and no extensive ductal carcinoma in situ) and in whom local therapy may have the largest impact on survival because of low systemic risk. Results: 965 patients were identified; 616 had BCT and 349 had MRM. The median follow-up time was 14.4 years (range, 8.4-23.3 years). Overall, 15-year rates of BCSS (76.0% vs 74.1%, P=.62), OS (74.2% vs 73.0%, P=.75), LRFS (85.4% vs 86.5%, P=.95), LRRFS (82.2% vs 81.6%, P=.61), and DRFS (74.4% vs 71.6%, P=.40) were similar between the BCT and MRM cohorts. In the “ideal” for BCT subgroup, there were 219 BCT and 67 MRM patients with a median follow-up time of 15.5 years. The 15-year BCSS (86.1% vs 82.9%, P=.57), OS (82.6% vs 82.9%, P=.89), LRFS (86.2% vs 84.2%, P=.50), LRRFS (83.1% vs 78.3%, P=.24), and DRFS (84.8% vs 79.1%, P=.17) were similar in the BCT and MRM cohorts. Conclusions: This population-based analysis with long-term follow-up confirmed that women younger than 40 years treated with BCT had similar 15-year outcomes compared with MRM. Young age alone is not a contraindication to BCT.