eISSN: 2081-2841
ISSN: 1689-832X
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
Current Issue Archive Supplements Articles in Press Journal Information Aims and Scope Editorial Office Editorial Board Register as Author Register as Reviewer Instructions for Authors Abstracting and indexing Subscription Advertising Information Links
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

2/2023
vol. 15
 
Share:
Share:
Case report

Focal salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy with implantable rectum spacer for locally recurrent prostate cancer after initial low-dose-rate with grade 3 rectal toxicity

Thirza Opbroek
1
,
Anne Cobussen
1
,
Evert J. Van Limbergen
1
,
Ben G.L. Vanneste
1, 2

1.
Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
2.
Department of Human Structure and Repair, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium
J Contemp Brachytherapy 2023; 15, 2: 154–158
Online publish date: 2023/03/22
Article file
- Focal salvage.pdf  [0.21 MB]
Get citation
 
 

Purpose

Low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy is one of the curable treatment options for low-risk prostate cancer, with biochemical-free progression rates of more than 90% up to 10 years post-treatment [1]. In a case of locally recurrent disease after previous radiotherapy (e.g., external beam or brachytherapy), salvage therapy remains very challenging, with theoretical high toxicity risks [2-4]. Majority of such patients are offered palliative hormonal therapy, and only minority, i.e., approx. 2%, are offered treatment with curative intent [2, 5]. Salvage treatment options after previous radiation therapy include salvage cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) prostatectomy, and LDR and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. Salvage cryotherapy and HIFU are associated with low complication rates, but also with poor local control outcomes, demonstrating 40-50% biochemical control rates at 2 to 5 years [6-8]. On the other hand, salvage prostatectomy is associated with slightly better oncologic outcome, with 50-60% biochemical disease-free survival at 5 years, but is associated with substantial toxicity rates, especially urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction [7, 8]. Moreover, grade 3 urinary incontinence rate after salvage prostatectomy is 41% vs. approx. 6% after salvage brachytherapy [7]. Salvage LDR brachytherapy seems to be effective in disease control, with a 5-year prostate specific antigen (PSA) relapse-free survival rates of 60-71%, but with strongly varying late grade 3 genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity profiles ranging between 0% and 30% [8-11]. Similar results have been observed with salvage HDR with biochemical control rates between 51% and 77% at 5 years post-treatment [12-15]. Focal salvage therapy instead of re-irradiating the whole gland may result in a reduced toxicity with equal disease control [16].

In this paper, we present a case of a focal salvage HDR treatment after previous iodine-125 (125I) seed implantation, with grade 3 late rectal toxicity for an initial low-risk prostate carcinoma. In this case, we used a rectal balloon spacer implant (RBI) in order to lower the rectal dose, thereby creating a window of opportunity to treat this patient with a curative intent. Without RBI, this patient would probably be offered palliative hormonal treatment.

Case presentation

A 76-year-old male patient was diagnosed in 2013, with a Gleason 3+3 adenocarcinoma of the prostate, with a tumor load of 1 out of 4 biopsies on the left lobe and 1 out of 3 on the right, tumor percentage 30% and 15-20%, respectively. Patient was staged as a cT1cN0M0 and diagnosed after a routine blood measurement (initial PSA, 4 ng/ml). Trans-rectal ultrasound showed a prostate volume of 22 cc. Treatment consisted of LDR brachytherapy with 125I seed implantation, with a prescribed dose of 145 Gray (Gy). Intra-operative dosimetry was as follows: the prostate D90 (dose to the 90% of volume) was 153.3 Gy, 105% of the prescribed dose of 145 Gy. The rectum constraints were relatively low: D0.1cc, D1cc, and D2cc (dose to 0.1 cc, 1 cc, and 2 cc of the rectum) was 156.3 Gy (107.8%), 122.3 Gy (84.4%), and 104.9 Gy (72%), respectively. Two years after seed implantation, the patient presented with rectal hemorrhage, reported as a grade 3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.03 [17]. He was treated with different medical interventions, including budesonide foam, and pentoxifylline and hyperbaric oxygenation therapy in 2016 [18]. By November 2017, the rectal hemorrhage almost completely resolved.

In July 2018, he presented with 3 consecutive PSA rises, according to the ASTRO definition of biochemical recurrence disease, highest value 2.4 ng/ml after nadir PSA at 0.7 ng/ml. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) nuclear examination using positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computerized tomography (CT) scan revealed local recurrent disease against the anterior rectal wall, without lymph node involvement or distant metastases (Figure 1). Biopsies showed a Gleason score 4+3 in 2 out of 5 biopsies, with a tumor percentage of 10%.

Fig. 1

Axial PSMA-PET CT scan of the patient with a local relapse

/f/fulltexts/JCB/50391/JCB-15-50391-g001_min.jpg

The patient was discussed at a multi-disciplinary tumor board and because of previously reported high toxicity following primary treatment, external beam re-irradiation was considered as very high-risk. The patient was counselled for salvage HDR brachytherapy with a RBI. The patient underwent a sigmoidoscopy by a gastroenterologist to rule out any deep ulceration, which was considered a risk factor for serious rectal injury following the placement of RBI. Sigmoidoscopy showed residual non-bleeding telangiectasia, without inflammation or ulceration. Prior to salvage treatment in November, 2018, the most recent PSA was 2.7 ng/ml. The multi-disciplinary tumor board and the patient agreed to proceed with aggressive curable treatment.

First, a RBI was implanted to maximally decrease the radiation dose to the rectum. The RBI (ProSpace™, BioProtect Inc., Kfar-Saba, Israel) was implanted transperineally between the Denonvilliers’ fascia and the rectum under trans-rectal ultrasonography guidance. The injection technique has been described previously [19]. The RBI was placed just before the start of the first HDR procedure in November, 2018. Gross tumor volume (GTV) was delineated on ultrasound imaging using PSMA-PET CT scan. The margin for clinical target volume (CTV) was 3 mm according to a local protocol. The urethra and the RBI were excluded from CTV (Figure 2). Specifications of the two HDR sessions are presented in Table 1 [20]. Volumes of the prostate and the treated volumes of GTV and CTV were 26.6, 2.8, and 5.9 cc, respectively.

Table 1

Dosimetric specifications of two HDR fractions, one week apart from each other

Fraction numberD90 GTVEQD2 (α/β 1.5 [20])
One12.6 Gy50.8 Gy
Two13.1 Gy54.6 Gy
Cumulative25.7 Gy105.4 Gy
Rectal dose 2 ccEQD2 (α/β 3)
One4.45 Gy6.6 Gy
Two3.35 Gy4.3 Gy
Cumulative7.8 Gy10.9 Gy

[i] GTV – gross tumor volume, D90 – dose receiving at least 90% of GTV

Fig. 2

Axial planning ultrasound plane from fraction 1 with prescribed dose being 12.6 Gy. Image shows gross tumor volume (orange), planning tumor volume (red), prostate (blue), and urethra (green), with isodose doses distributions of 130% (white) and 100% (yellow). Rectal balloon spacer implant (RBI) is marked green between prostate (light blue) and rectum (dark blue)

/f/fulltexts/JCB/50391/JCB-15-50391-g002_min.jpg

The treatment was tolerated well, with no acute rectal toxicity and no further toxicities reported up to 4 years post-treatment. Furthermore, the patient reported only moderate urinary tract obstruction described as grade 1 according to the CTCAE, version 4.03 [17]. At 18 months after salvage HDR, the PSA dropped to 0.3 ng/ml. Most recent PSA value dating December, 2022 was 2.2 ng/ml, which is not PSA-nadir + 2.0 ng/ml, and not strict considered as a biochemical recurrence, however it is slightly indicative (Figure 3).

Fig. 3

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) values depicted in a graphic. Last PSA value was 2.2, but not yet PSA-nadir +2, which, according to Phoenix definition, is considered a biochemical recurrence

/f/fulltexts/JCB/50391/JCB-15-50391-g003_min.jpg

Discussion

Curative treatment for locally recurrent disease after initial radiation treatment remains difficult and very challenging. This is even more so in the context of significant late toxicity after initial treatment, which leads to the onset of significant late toxicity. The vast majority (i.e., 98%) of the patients in this setting are offered palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Salvage treatment is mainly hampered by high toxicity risk after previous irradiation. However, life-long ADT is also associated with significant side effects, including hot flashes, erectile dysfunction, and loss of interest in sexual activity, thereby limiting patients’ quality of life, with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, neurological deficits, and diabetes resulting in an increased mortality [21-25]. A window of opportunity for limiting the toxicity of salvage treatment may be focal salvage treatment instead of treating the whole gland. In the case of prostate cancer, this concept and rationale behind focal salvage treatment has been elaborately described in previous research [26-30]. In the current paper, we described a favorable oncological and toxicity outcomes with focal salvage HDR after previous rectal toxicity due to LDR treatment. In this context, both the focal treatment and the rectal balloon spacer offered a therapeutic window, through which we were able to deliver an adequate tumor dose while minimizing the rectal dose. Salvage HDR treatment is a relatively new concept, and it has been described previously, amongst others, by Maenhout et al. [31]. They analyzed favorable toxicity profiles of 17 focal patients treated with a single 19 Gy fraction, with only one case of grade 3 toxicity post-salvage HDR after 10 months of follow-up. Another case series from Maenhout et al. among 30 patients and 24 months of follow-up resulted in only 2 patients with a grade 2 and 3 urinary toxicity each [32]. Acute toxicity after salvage HDR treatment is overall limited to grade 1 or 2 with only few cases of grade 3 toxicity (3-14%) [9, 14, 15, 33, 34]. A recent study by Chitmanee et al. reported 25% of grade 2 and 5% of grade 3 genitourinary late toxicities, with 8% of grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity [33]. Chen et al. demonstrated only 3% of late grade 3 genitourinary and 4% gastrointestinal toxicity [14]. Biochemical-free rate at 3 years ranges from 46% to 76% in whole gland salvage HDR [9, 14, 15, 33]. There is only limited evidence of the local biochemical control after focal salvage treatment. One study by Murgic et al. reported relapse-free rate at 3 years of 61%, which is comparable with whole gland salvage outcomes [16]. In our patient, a complicating factor was the previous grade 3 rectal toxicity and the location of the recurrent disease in close vicinity of the anterior rectal wall. Before treatment, colonoscopy showed no signs of radiation proctitis, but the patient remained at a high-risk of rectal perforation and/or ulceration. In order to decrease rectal dose, the use of a rectum spacer has proven to be effective in decreasing acute and late rectal toxicities [19, 35]. We used a saline-filled RBI, which is composed of biodegradable polymers that biodegrades within the human body within 3-6 months. Previously, the use of a RBI has been proven to be safe and effective, but not without risks [36, 37]. The balloon had evaporated 6 months post-treatment, and no RBI-related toxicity had occurred.

An important limitation of the proposed workaround is that the knowledge of rectum spacers is relatively limited in re-irradiation setting; therefore, more clinical studies are needed to prove its safety in this category of patients. Potential side effects include rectum perforation and/or necrosis, perineal abscess requiring drainage, recto-urethral fistula, proctitis requiring colostomy, and severe urosepsis necessitating intensive care unit level care, which are reported in radiotherapy-naïve prostate-rectum tissue [38]. The implantation of RBI was complicated by sub-mucosal scarring, increased fibrosis, and cicatrization of the surrounding tissues due to previous radiation toxicity, which could theoretically increase the potential side-effects; however, in our case, it was successfully implanted. The advantage of the inflatable RBI system is that it allows for post-implant correction of the RBI position, whereas liquid spacers (hydrogels, human collagen) do not permit any correction once injected [19].

Conclusions

Here, we described a case of successful focal HDR salvage treatment with the use of a RBI after previous grade 3 rectal radiotherapy-related toxicity. At 4 years of follow-up, no treatment-related toxicities occurred, and there is no evidence of biochemical recurrence. At 4 years of follow-up, no treatment-related toxicities occurred, and there is no evidence of biochemical recurrence according Phoenix definition.

In our opinion, this treatment strategy using focal salvage brachytherapy in combination with a RBI could be considered in this specified high-risk feature patients’ population to obtain the best outcomes and survival. However, more research is needed to confirm safety and efficiency in this specific patients’ group.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Grimm P, Billiet I, Bostwick D et al. Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group. BJU Int 2012; 109 Suppl 1: 22-29.

2 

Ogaya-Pinies G, Linares-Espinos E, Hernandez-Cardona E et al. Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional outcomes from two high-volume institutions. World J Urol 2019; 37: 1499-1505.

3 

Ramey SJ, Marshall DT. Re-irradiation for salvage of prostate cancer failures after primary radiotherapy. World J Urol 2013; 31: 1339-1345.

4 

Peters M, Moman MR, van der Poel HG et al. Patterns of outcome and toxicity after salvage prostatectomy, salvage cryosurgery and salvage brachytherapy for prostate cancer recurrences after radiation therapy: a multi-center experience and literature review. World J Urol 2013; 31: 403-409.

5 

Tran H, Kwok J, Pickles T et al. Underutilization of local salvage therapy after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2014; 32: 701-706.

6 

Khoo CC, Miah S, Connor MJ et al. A systematic review of salvage focal therapies for localised non-metastatic radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9: 1535-1545.

7 

Nguyen PL, D’Amico AV, Lee AK et al. Patient selection, cancer control, and complications after salvage local therapy for postradiation prostate-specific antigen failure: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer 2007; 110: 1417-1428.

8 

Alongi F, De Bari B, Campostrini F et al. Salvage therapy of intraprostatic failure after radical external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2013; 88: 550-563.

9 

Kollmeier MA, McBride S, Taggar A et al. Salvage brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiation therapy: A comparison of low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate brachytherapy and the importance of prostate-specific antigen doubling time. Brachytherapy 2017; 16: 1091-1098.

10 

Henríquez López I, González-San Segundo C, Vegas JO et al. Salvage brachytherapy for locally-recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy: A comparison of efficacy and toxicity outcomes with high-dose rate and low-dose rate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2019; 141: 156-163.

11 

Nguyen PL, Chen MH, D’Amico AV et al. Magnetic resonance image-guided salvage brachytherapy after radiation in select men who initially presented with favorable-risk prostate cancer: a prospective phase 2 study. Cancer 2007; 110: 1485-1492.

12 

Henríquez I, Sancho G, Hervás A et al. Salvage brachytherapy in prostate local recurrence after radiation therapy: predicting factors for control and toxicity. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 102.

13 

Yamada Y, Kollmeier MA, Pei X et al. A phase II study of salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive external beam radiotherapy. Brachytherapy 2014; 13: 111-116.

14 

Chen CP, Weinberg V, Shinohara K et al. Salvage HDR brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after previous definitive radiation therapy: 5-year outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86: 324-329.

15 

Wojcieszek P, Szlag M, Glowacki G et al. Salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy failure. Radiother Oncol 2016; 119: 405-410.

16 

Murgic J, Morton G, Loblaw A et al. Focal salvage high dose-rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy failure: results from a prospective clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102: 561-567.

17 

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.03 (CTCAE). Available from: http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm.

18 

Vanneste BGL, Van De Voorde L, de Ridder RJ et al. Chronic radiation proctitis: tricks to prevent and treat. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30: 1293-1303.

19 

Vanneste BGL, van De Beek K, Lutgens L et al. Implantation of a biodegradable rectum balloon implant: tips, Tricks and Pitfalls. Int Braz J Urol 2017; 43: 1033-1042.

20 

Vogelius IR, Bentzen SM. Meta-analysis of the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor: bad news, good news, or no news? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85: 89-94.

21 

Spratt DE, McHugh DJ, Morris MJ et al. Management of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: ensuring the right treatment of the right patient at the right time. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2018; 38: 355-362.

22 

Saylor PJ, Keating NL, Smith MR. Prostate cancer survivorship: prevention and treatment of the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24 Suppl 2: S389-394.

23 

Saylor PJ, Smith MR. Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy: defining the problem and promoting health among men with prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 211-223.

24 

Keating NL, O’Malley AJ, Freedland SJ et al. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy: observational study of veterans with prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 39-46.

25 

Cheung AS, de Rooy C, Hoermann R et al. Quality of life decrements in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Clin Endocrinol 2017; 86: 388-394.

26 

van Son M, Peters M, Moerland M et al. Focal salvage treatment of radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a narrative review of current strategies and future perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10: 480.

27 

Arrayeh E, Westphalen AC, Kurhanewicz J et al. Does local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiation therapy occur at the site of primary tumor? Results of a longitudinal MRI and MRSI study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: e787-e793.

28 

Cellini N, Morganti AG, Mattiucci GC et al. Analysis of intraprostatic failures in patients treated with hormonal therapy and radiotherapy: implications for conformal therapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53: 595-599.

29 

Pucar D, Hricak H, Shukla-Dave A et al. Clinically significant prostate cancer local recurrence after radiation therapy occurs at the site of primary tumor: magnetic resonance imaging and step-section pathology evidence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 62-69.

30 

Jalloh M, Leapman MS, Cowan JE et al. Patterns of local failure following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 194: 977-982.

31 

Maenhout M, van Vulpen M, Moerland M et al. Second salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2017; 9: 161-166.

32 

Maenhout M, Peters M, van Vulpen M et al. Focal MRI-guided salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy in patients with radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2017; 16: 1194-1201.

33 

Chitmanee P, Tsang Y, Tharmalingam H et al. Single-dose focal salvage high dose rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer. Clin Oncol 2020; 32: 259-265.

34 

Crook JM, Zhang P, Pisansky TM et al. A prospective phase 2 trial of transperineal ultrasound-guided brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG-0526). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 103: 335-343.

35 

Vanneste BGL, van Wijk Y, Lutgens LC et al. Dynamics of rectal balloon implant shrinkage in prostate VMAT : Influence on anorectal dose and late rectal complication risk. Strahlenther Onkol 2018; 194: 31-40.

36 

Schörghofer A, Drerup M, Kunit T et al. Rectum-spacer related acute toxicity–endoscopy results of 403 prostate cancer patients after implantation of gel or balloon spacers. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14: 47.

37 

Afkhami Ardekani M, Ghaffari H. Optimization of prostate brachytherapy techniques with polyethylene glycol-based hydrogel spacers: A systematic review. Brachytherapy 2020; 19: 13-23.

38 

Aminsharifi A, Kotamarti S, Silver D et al. Major complications and adverse events related to the injection of the spaceOAR hydrogel system before radiotherapy for prostate cancer: review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Endourol 2019; 33: 868-871.

Copyright: © 2023 Termedia Sp. z o. o. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.