Permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental therapies is a highly effective treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer, with biochemical outcomes and morbidity profiles comparing favorably with competing local modalities. However, the absence of prospective randomized brachytherapy trials evaluating the role of supplemental external-beam radiation therapy (XRT) has precluded the development of evidence-based treatment algorithms for the appropriate inclusion of such treatment. Some groups advocate supplemental XRT for all patients, but the usefulness of this technology remains largely unproven and has been questioned by recent reports of favorable biochemical outcomes following brachytherapy used alone in patients at higher risk. Given that brachytherapy can be used at high intraprostatic doses and can obtain generous periprostatic treatment margins, the use of supplemental XRT may be relegated to patients with a high risk of seminal vesicle and/or pelvic lymph node involvement. Although morbidity following brachytherapy has been acceptable, supplemental XRT has shown an adverse impact on long-term quality of life. The completion of ongoing prospective randomized trials will help define the role of XRT as a supplement to permanent prostate brachytherapy.
Prostate brachytherapy is a highly effective treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer, with biochemical outcomes and morbidity profiles comparing favorably with competing local modalities.[1-7] These favorable biochemical control rates are in part the result of intraprostatic dose escalation and therapeutic periprostatic irradiation resulting from generous periprostatic brachytherapy treatment margins and/or supplemental external-beam radiation therapy (XRT).[8-10] It has become increasingly clear that efficacy and morbidity depend on the quality of brachytherapy.[8-10] Having established that brachytherapy can eradicate cancer in a large majority of patients, investigators are focusing increasing attention on maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of this modality.
Some investigators have advocated the liberal use of supplemental XRT based on its theoretical requirement in eradicating periprostatic cancer in patients at higher risk.[6,7] The American Brachytherapy Society has recommended that supplemental XRT be used in patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 10 ng/mL, a biopsy Gleason score ≥ 7, and/or bilobar, palpable disease, with brachytherapy alone reserved for patients with low-risk features (PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 6, and clinical stage ≤ T2a).
Development of evidence-based treatment algorithms that include supplemental XRT in patient treatment plans has been hampered by the lack of data from prospective randomized trials combining the technique with brachytherapy. In fact, this technique remains largely unproven, and recent reports of favorable biochemical outcomes following brachytherapy used alone in patients with higher-risk features have questioned its usefulness.[2,4,12,13] The ability of high-quality, monotherapeutic brachytherapy to deliver cancer-ablating intraprostatic doses with generous periprostatic treatment margins will likely obviate the need for supplemental XRT in low-, intermediate-, and selected high-risk patients.
Rationale for Supplemental XRT
When used with permanent prostate brachytherapy, supplemental XRT enhances the radiation dose to the periprostatic region and allows intraprostatic dose escalation, dose supplementation of a technically inadequate implant, and irradiation of the seminal vesicles and/or pelvic lymph nodes (Table 1). When used with high-quality brachytherapy, the value of supplemental XRT for the first three of these indications is highly suspect.
Treating Extracapsular Disease
In the absence of pelvic lymph node involvement and distant metastases, prostate cancer patients with extraprostatic extension remain curable as long as the malignant extracapsular component can be eradicated. Even among patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer and a PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL, as many as 50% manifest extraprostatic extension at the time of radical prostatectomy. Pathologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens has shown the mean extent of extraprostatic extension to be in the range of 1 to 3 mm; thus, brachytherapy treatment margins of 5 mm should encompass all sites of extracapsular extension in 99% of cases (Table 2).[15-17]
As such, the primary rationale for supplemental XRT is to increase the dose and radial extent of periprostatic irradiation for the sterilization of extraprostatic extension (Figure 1). Implant prescription radiation doses may be delivered consistently to the prostate, the periprostatic region, and the proximal seminal vesicles using appropriately placed high-activity ex-tracapsular and/or intracapsular seeds (Figure 2, Table 3).[8-10,18]
Adverse pathologic features (eg, high Gleason score, perineural invasion, and extensive tumor) in the biopsy specimen correlate with a higher likelihood of extraprostatic extension. The ability of brachytherapy to irradiate the prostate with generous treatment margins may make these adverse prognosticators less important compared with competing local treatment modalities.[1,2,4,8,19] For example, a study of hormone-naive brachy-therapy patients implanted with generous periprostatic treatment margins showed that whether or not supplemental XRT was used, the presence of perineural invasion in the biopsy specimen did not adversely affect 8-year biochemical progression-free survival.
When cancer-positive prostate biopsies were stratified by pretreatment PSA level, a higher percentage predicted for a significant increase in extraprostatic extension but only a minimal increase in the involvement of either the seminal vesicles or the pelvic lymph nodes. Following radical prostatectomy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), biopsies stratified into < 34% positive, 34%-50% positive, and > 50% positive cohorts were inversely related to biochemical outcome. Although the ability of percent-positive biopsies to predict biochemical control rates following brachytherapy is statistically significant, the absolute differences when stratified into the above-mentioned percent-positive biopsy cohorts are minimal and independent of supplemental XRT use. These favorable brachytherapy results may be attributed to aggressive irradiation of the extracapsular region, including the base of the seminal vesicles (Figure 2).
An aggressive locoregional approach that includes generous periprostatic brachytherapy treatment margins and delivery of therapeutic doses to the prostate gland, extracapsular region, and base of the seminal vesicles with postimplant dosimetric analyses to confirm adequate radiation dose distributions results in a high probability of biochemical success in patients with a substantial risk of extraprostatic extension, limited involvement of the seminal vesicles, and a low risk of pelvic lymph node involvement.[2,4,8-10,15-17,21]
Eradicating Intraprostatic Cancer
A second rationale for supplemental XRT is to increase intra- and extraprostatic radiation dose distributions. The precise cancer-ablating intra- and extraprostatic doses are unclear, because such doses have not been delineated definitively for gross and microscopic disease. However, available data strongly suggest that intraprostatic dose escalation secondary to the addition of supplemental XRT is unnecessary with high-quality brachytherapy.
Kollmeier and colleagues published day 30 postimplant dosimetric cutpoints for monotherapeutic intraprostatic radiation dose. They concluded that a D90 (the minimum dose delivered to the "hottest" 90% of the prostate) measuring 140 Gy for iodine (I)-125 and 100 Gy for palladium (Pd)-103 represented thresholds for optimal biochemical outcome. These doses comprised 93% and 80%, respectively, of the commonly prescribed monotherapeutic doses for I-125 and Pd-103. In experienced hands, these cutpoints are routinely achievable in more than 98% of all monotherapeutic implants subjected to dosimetric analysis on the day of brachytherapy implantation.
Rectifying a Technically Inadequate Implant
Technically inadequate implants result from either inadequate computer-based treatment planning or poor technique. However, the impact of implant-related edema is not an excuse for an inadequate result. While adding supplemental XRT "spackles" intraprostatic dose deficiencies, adds several millimeters to the periprostatic margin, and minimizes the clinical impact of a technically inadequate implant and/or treatment-related edema, the use of generous, planned treatment margins minimizes the effect of this fluid retention.
A modified, uniform/peripheral planning philosophy results in a dose distribution that is relatively homogeneous throughout the prostate gland and extracapsular region, is least dependent on seed migration, and is relatively independent of brachytherapy-related edema.[18,23,24] With the increasing availability of intraoperative dosimetry, technically inadequate implants should be rare.
Patients with probable minimal involvement of the seminal vesicles and a low risk of pelvic lymph node involvement are unlikely to benefit from supplemental XRT if they have undergone brachytherapy with treatment margins of 5 mm or larger, as determined by day 0 computed tomography (CT), and a D90 greater than the prescription dose.
The author(s) have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.
1. Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM: Permanent interstitial brachytherapy in the management of carcinoma of the prostate gland. J Urol 69:1643-1652, 2003.
2. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Impact of supplemental external-beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:32-43, 2005.
3. Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM: Minimizing prostate brachytherapy-related morbidity. Urology 62:786-792, 2003.
4. Blasko JC, Grimm PD, Sylvester JE, et al: Palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:839-850, 2000.
5. Grimm PD, Blasko JC, Sylvester JE, et al: 10-year biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) control of prostate cancer with 125I brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 251:31-40, 2001.
6. Critz FA: A standard definition of disease freedom is needed for prostate cancer: Undetectable prostate specific antigen compared with the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition. J Urol 167:1310-1313, 2002.
7. Dattoli M, Wallner K, True L, et al: Long-term outcomes after treatment with external-beam radiation therapy and palladium 103 for patients with higher risk prostate carcinoma. Cancer 97:979-983, 2003.
8. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et al: The effect of prostate size and isotope selection on dosimetric quality following permanent seed implantation. Tech Urol 7:233-240, 2001.
9. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Extracapsular radiation dose distribution following permanent prostate brachytherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 26:E178-E189, 2003.
10. Choi S, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. Treatment margins predict biochemical outcome after prostate brachytherapy. Cancer J Sci Am 10:175-180, 2004.
11. Nag S, Beyer D, Friedland J, et al: American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44:789-799, 1999.
12. Potters L, Torre T, Ashley R, et al: Examining the role of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation in patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:1187-1192, 2000.
13. Lee L, Stock RG, Stone NN. Role of hormonal therapy in the management of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer treated with permanent radioactive seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:444-452, 2002.
14. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DA, et al: Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millenium. Urology 58:843-848, 2001.
15. Davis BJ, Pisansky TM, Wilson TM, et al: The radial distance of extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma: Implications for prostate brachytherapy. Cancer 85:2630-2637, 1999.
16. Sohayda C, Kupelian PA, Levin HS, et al: Extent of extracapsular extension in localized prostate cancer. Urology 55:382-386, 2000.
17. Teh BS, Bastasch MD, Mai W-Y, et al: Predictors of extracapsular extension and its radial distance in prostate cancer: Implications for prostate IMRT, brachytherapy and surgery. Cancer J 9:454-460, 2003.
18. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et al: Seed fixity in the prostate/periprostatic region following brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:215-220, 2000.
19. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Prognostic significance of perineural invasion on biochemical progression-free survival following prostate brachytherapy. Urology 66:1048-1053, 2005.
20. Gancarczyk KJ, Wu H, McLeod DG, et al: Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: The Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. Urology 61:589-595, 2003.
21. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Prognostic significance of percent positive biopsies in clinically organ-confined prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external-beam radiation. Cancer J 10:54-60, 2004.
22. Kollmeier MA, Stock RG, Stone NN: Biochemical outcomes after prostate brachytherapy with 5-year minimal follow-up: Importance of patient selection and implant quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 7:645-653, 2003.
23. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et al: The dependence of prostate post-implant dosimetric quality of CT volume determination. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44:1111-1117, 1999.
24. Merrick GS, Butler WM: Modified uniform seed loading for prostate brachytherapy: Rationale, design, and evaluation. Tech Urol 6:78-684, 2000.
25. Reed DR, Wallner KE, Narayanan S, et al: Intraoperative fluoroscopic dose assessment in prostate brachytherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:301-307, 2005.
26. Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Vicini FA, et al: Treatment of prostate cancer with radiotherapy: Should the entire seminal vesicles be included in the clinical target volume? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:686-697, 2002.
27. Stock RG, Lo Y-C, Gaildon M, et al: Does prostate brachytherapy treat the seminal vesicles? A dose-volume histogram analysis of seminal vesicles in patients undergoing combined Pd-103 prostate implantation and external-beam irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:385-389, 1999.
28. Roach III M, DeSilvio C, Lawton V, et al: Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol 21:1904-1911, 2003.
29. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Variability of prostate brachytherapy preimplant dosimetry: A multi-institutional analysis. Brachytherapy 4:241-251, 2005.
30. Roberson PL, Narayana V, McShan DL, et al: Source placement error for permanent implant of the prostate. Med Phys 24:251-257, 1997.
31. Dawson JE, Wu T, Roy T, et al: Dose effects of seed placement deviations from preplanned positions in ultrasound guided prostate implants. Radiother Oncol 32:268-270, 1994.
32. Davis BJ, Haddock MG, Wilson TM, et al: Treatment of extraprostatic cancer in clinically organ-confined prostate cancer by permanent interstitial brachytherapy: Is extraprostatic seed placement necessary? Tech Urol 6:70-77, 2000.
33. Prostate, in American Joint Committee on Cancer: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th ed, pp 309-316. New York, Springer, 2002.
34. Sharkey J, Cantor A, Solc Z, et al: 103Pd brachytherapy versus radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: A 12-year experience from a single group practice. Brachytherapy 4:34-44, 2005.
35. Potters L, Morgenstern C, Calugaru E, et al: 12-year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 173:1562-1566, 2005.
36. Ragde H, Blasko JC, Grimm PD, et al: Interstitial iodine-125 radiation without adjuvant therapy in the treatment of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 80:442-453, 1997.
37. Ragde H, Elgamal AA, Snow PB, et al: Ten-year disease free survival after transperineal sonography-guided iodine-125 brachytherapy with or without 45-gray external-beam irradiation in the treatment of patients with clinically localized, low to high Gleason's grade, prostate carcinoma. Cancer 83:989-1001, 1998.
38. Blasko JC, Grimm PD, Sylvester JE, et al: The role of external-beam radiotherapy with I-125/Pd-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 57:273-278, 2000.
39. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: The impact of primary Gleason grade on biochemical outcome following brachytherapy for Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Cancer J 11:234-240, 2005.
40. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW, et al: Does hormonal manipulation in conjunction with permanent interstitial brachytherapy, with or without supplemental external-beam irradiation, improve the biochemical outcome for men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer? BJU Int 91:23-29, 2003.
41. Brachman DG, Thomas T, Hilbe J, et al: Failure-free survival following brachytherapy alone or external-beam irradiation alone for T1-2 prostate tumors in 2222 patients: Results from a single practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:111-117, 2000.
42. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz B, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969-974, 1998.
43. Kwok Y, DiBiase SJ, Amin PP, et al: Risk group stratification in patients undergoing permanent 125I prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:588-594, 2002.
44. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Long-term urinary quality of life following permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:454-61, 2003.
45. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Risk factors for the development of prostate brachytherapy-related urethral strictures. J Urol 175:1376-1381, 2006.
46. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Late rectal function following prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1:42-48, 2003.
47. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Rectal function following brachytherapy: Results of two prospective randomized trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57(suppl 2):S230, 2003.
48. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: The importance of radiation doses to the penile bulb vs. crura in the development of postbrachytherapy erectile dysfunction. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:1055-1062, 2002.
49. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Erectile function after prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:437-447, 2005.
50. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Lief JH, et al: Efficacy of sildenafil citrate in prostate brachytherapy patients with erectile dysfunction. Urology 53:1112-1116, 1999.
51. Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al: 20 Gy versus 44 Gy supplemental beam radiation with Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy: Early biochemical outcomes from a prospective randomized multi-center trial. Radiother Oncol 75:307-310, 2005.