# Salvage low-dose-rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive irradiation

Y Meraouna, P Blanchard, S Losa, A Labib, S Krhili, P Pommier, G

Crehange, T Flam, J-M Cosset, M Kissel

► To cite this version:

Y Meraouna, P Blanchard, S Losa, A Labib, S Krhili, et al.. Salvage low-dose-rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive irradiation. Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology, 2024, 48, pp.100809. 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100809. inserm-04963240

HAL Id: inserm-04963240

https://inserm.hal.science/inserm-04963240v1

Submitted on 24 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Original Research Article

# Salvage low-dose-rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive irradiation

Y. Meraouna<sup>a,b</sup>, P. Blanchard<sup>c</sup>, S. Losa<sup>d</sup>, A. Labib<sup>a</sup>, S. Krhili<sup>a</sup>, P. Pommier<sup>a</sup>, G. Crehange<sup>a</sup>, T. Flam<sup>a,e</sup>, J-M. Cosset<sup>f</sup>, M. Kissel<sup>a,*</sup>

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Prostatic neoplasms

Salvage Therapy

Low dose rate

Brachytherapy

Re-irradiation

Disease-free-survival

ABSTRACT

**Purpose:** The optimal management of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive irradiation is still unclear but local salvage treatments are gaining interest. A retrospective, single-institution analysis of clinical outcomes and treatment-related toxicity after salvage I-125 low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy (BT) for locally-recurrent prostate cancer was conducted in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

**Patients and methods:** A total of 94 patients treated with salvage LDR-BT between 2006 and 2021 were included. The target volume was either the whole-gland +/- a boost on the GTV, the hemigland, or only the GTV. The prescribed dose ranged from 90 to 145 Gy. Toxicity was graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0.

**Results:** Median follow-up was 34 months. Initial radiotherapy was external beam radiotherapy in 73 patients (78 %) with a median dose of 76 Gy and I-125 BT in 21 patients (22 %) with a prescribed dose of 145 Gy. Median PSA at salvage was 3.75 ng/ml with a median interval between first and salvage irradiation of 9.4 years. Salvage brachytherapy was associated with androgen deprivation therapy for 32 % of the patients. Only 4 % of the patients were castrate-resistant. Failure free survival was 82 % at 2 years and 66 % at 3 years. The only factors associated with failure-free survival on multivariate analysis were hormonosensitivity at relapse and European Association of Urology (EAU) prognostic group. Late grade 3 urinary and rectal toxicities occurred in 12 % and 1 % of the patients respectively.

No significant difference in toxicity or efficacy was observed between the three implant volume groups.

**Conclusion:** The efficacy and toxicity results are consistent with those in the LDR group of the MASTER meta-analysis. Salvage BT confirms to be an effective and safe option for locally recurrent prostate cancer. A focal approach could be interesting to reduce late severe toxicities, especially urinary.

Introduction

Definitive radiotherapy is a standard of care curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) in all risk groups. Depending on D'Amico risk classification, External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) or Brachytherapy (BT) can be used with or without a combination with androgen deprivation therapy [1].

Despite improvements on the outcomes over the years with advances in diagnostic imaging, RT delivery techniques and dose-escalated

radiation, biochemical recurrence (BCR), remains frequent with approximately 10–20 % patients initially treated with radiotherapy experiencing BCR in recent mature phase III studies [2–5].

While palliative androgen deprivation therapy or observation is often proposed in this setting [6], next generation metabolic imaging techniques such as Choline and especially PSMA PET/CT [7–10], combined with multiparametric MRI [11], has led to a better detection of isolated local recurrence, eligible for a second local treatment with curative intent.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Radiotherapy Department, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Faculté de médecine Sorbonne Université, 91-105 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Radiotherapy Department, Gustave Roussy, 114 Boulevard Edouard Vaillant, 94220 Villejuif, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Physics Department, Institut Curie, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Urology Department, Clinique Saint Jean de Dieu, 2 rue Rousselet, 75007 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> Radiotherapy Department, Centre Charlebourg – La Défense – Amethyst Radiothérapie, 65 Avenue Foch, 92250 La Garenne-Colombes, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Manon.kissel@curie.fr (M. Kissel).</footnote>
One of the main challenges in treating patients with radiorecurrent PCa is the risk of significant genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with local salvage therapies.

Thus, BT which offers delivery of highly conformal high dose radiation with a steep dose gradient and rapid fall off, can minimize dose to organs at risk and hence toxicity [12].

The objective of the study was to report the experience in salvage Low-Dose rate (LDR) BT in terms of efficacy and toxicity.

## Patients and methods

### Patients

Between 2006 and 2021, all consecutive patients treated at Institut Curie, Paris with salvage LDR-BT were included. Eligible patients had received either EBRT or BT, for definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer, at least 2 years prior to salvage BT. The decision to proceed with salvage BT was made after deliberation by the genitourinary Multidisciplinary Tumor Board, and patients received comprehensive information about all the available treatment options. Androgen deprivation therapy was permitted, either as a neo-adjuvant treatment, concurrent with salvage BT or as an adjuvant treatment. Patients under the age of 18, those under legal guardianship, patients who refused to allow their data to be used, or those with histology types other than adenocarcinoma (such as lymphoma or sarcoma) were excluded from the study.

Data for this analysis were obtained retrospectively from the patients' medical records. For each patient, the collected data included demographic information, relevant comorbidities, clinical and technical details of previous cancer and radiation treatments, tumor characteristics at the time of, the presence of any residual side effects from previous radiation therapy, hormone sensitivity or resistance at the time of recurrence, the date of salvage BT, the prescribed BT dose, technical specifics of the procedure, the date of local and distant recurrence, and the patient's last known vital status. We also used the European Association of Urology (EAU) stratification which dichotomizes patients as suitable for salvage treatment or not suitable for salvage treatment. EAU guidelines mention that should be considered for salvage treatment patients with low co-morbidity, a life expectancy of at least 10 years, a pre-salvage PSA < 10 ng/mL and initial biopsy ISUP grade < 2/3, no lymph node involvement or evidence of distant metastatic disease pre-salvage treatment, and those whose initial clinical staging was T1 or T2 [13].

The primary measure of treatment efficacy was the regular monitoring of PSA levels. In cases where hormone therapy was administered concurrently, testosterone levels were also regularly assessed to confirm androgen deprivation. Biochemical recurrence was defined according to Phoenix criteria, which is characterized by a PSA increase of 2 ng/mL or more above the nadir level after treatment [14]. Radiological exams were conducted in instances of PSA relapse or when symptoms suggested possible metastatic progression. The classification of the primary disease was based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria, with high-risk disease defined by the presence of one or more of the following factors: disease stage ≥ T3a, PSA levels ≥ 20 ng/ml, or a Gleason score ≥ 8 [15]. The severity of treatment-related side effects was reported using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, version 5.0 [16], which evaluated urinary toxicity in terms of dysuria, urgency, hematuria, urinary retention, urinary incontinence, and urinary fistula. For digestive toxicity, the criteria included diarrhea, proctitis, rectal hemorrhage, abdominal pain, and rectal fistula. Failure was defined as either biochemical relapse, clinical relapse, or death from any cause.

### Salvage brachytherapy techniques

Pre-salvage BT work-up was dependent on inclusion era and consisted in thoraco-abdomino-pelvic CT scan and bone scintigraphy or

Choline PET-CT.

Histological evidence of relapse was obtained whenever possible. The absence of sequelae of previous irradiation was verified by questioning. A cystoscopy and/or rectoscopy was performed if necessary.

BT was delivered in one implant under general anesthesia with real-time transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guidance. The dose was ranged between 90 and 145 Gy. The target volume was the whole-gland (WG) +/- a boost on the GTV (WG + Boost), the hemigland (HG), or only the GTV (ultrafocal treatment, UF). The patients treated on the whole gland with a boost on the GTV were included in a clinical trial (CAPRICUR, NCT01956058 [17]). All patients during the inclusion period were treated with this method based on CAPRICUR inclusion criteria: localized prostate adenocarcinoma who presented as baseline characteristics a PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml, a Gleason score ≤ 7 and T1c to T2c, who recurred more than 24 months after the end of the first radiotherapy or brachytherapy, PSA at recurrence < 10 ng/ml and who were not started on hormone therapy since the diagnosis of recurrence. Outside from this period, the treated volume was at the discretion of the treating physician. Schematically, patients that had a clear concordance between MRI and biopsies on the localization of the recurrence were selected for a focal or hemigland approach, depending on the size of the index tumor. All other patients (multifocal intraprostatic relapse or discrepancies between MRI and biopsies) were treated on the whole gland.

The needles were implanted at regular intervals in the peripheral prostate in a subcapsular crown pattern. Central needles were then added to essentially cover the apex and base areas. The urethra was defined by the outer surface of the intraprostatic Foley catheter. All structures were outlined on TRUS images. The implants could be performed by the radiation oncologist or by a duo urologist-radiation oncologist. Dose delivered to the different volumes differed within three distinct group of patients according to whether the whole gland, the whole gland + boost, the hemigland or ultrafocal treatment were indicated. Table 2 shows the prescription dose as well as dose-volume constraints to OARs according to this classification. Dose calculation was performed using Variseed v8.0.1 brachytherapy software with real time intra-op module (Varian Medical Systems). Once the dosimetry was validated by the radiation oncologist, Iodine-125 S06 loose seeds (Eckert & Ziegler, Germany) were implanted needle after needle connecting each 15 seed cartridge to a Mick-applicator (Eckert & Ziegler, Germany) under real-time ultrasound (B&K US Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark) guidance according to previous planning. Dosimetry could be manually adjusted in real-time if needed in order to meet dose-volume objectives as well as constraints to OARs. Technical data regarding salvage BT are detailed in Table 3.

The patients were discharged the morning following the procedure.

### Ethics

This retrospective study was institutional review-board-approved. A specific information note was sent to patients.

### Statistics

Qualitative variables were described by using numbers and percentages, and quantitative variables by using mean (+/- standard deviation) or median and range in case of non-normal distribution. Overall survival, local and distant recurrence-free survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and calculated from the date of salvage BT. The median time and survival rates at different points since the treatment start were estimated with their 95 % confidence interval. The log-rank test and the Cox model were used to compare survival curves according to observed characteristics. The effect of continuous variables on survival was evaluated both continuously and through a log-rank test.

Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software v9.4.
<table><caption>**Table 1**

Patients' characteristics.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>n (%)<br>Median [min – max]</th><th>N</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Initial Gleason's score</td><td></td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 8</td><td>79 (84 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 8</td><td>15 (16 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gleason's score at salvage</td><td></td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 8</td><td>77 (87.5 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 8</td><td>11 (12.5 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Initial NCCN risk group</td><td></td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Low risk</td><td>20 (21.3 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>23 (24.5 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>High risk / advanced (T3 and/or N1)</td><td>51 (54.3 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>NCCN risk group (at salvage)</td><td></td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Low risk</td><td>16 (18.2 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>61 (69.3 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>High risk / advanced (T3 and/or N1)</td><td>11 (12.5 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Interval 1st RT – BT (years)</td><td>9.4 [2.2–22.7]</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Modality of first irradiation</td><td></td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>EBRT</td><td>73 (77.7 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Iodine seeds BT</td><td>21 (22.3 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Technique of first EBRT</td><td></td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>2D</td><td>1 (1.5 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3D</td><td>47 (69.1 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>IMRT</td><td>20 (29.4 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Physical dose of first EBRT (Gy [range])</td><td>75 [65–80]</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Pelvic RT in first radiotherapy</td><td>34 (38.2 %)</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>Androgen deprivation therapy associated with first irradiation</td><td>33 (35.5 %)</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>51 (54.8 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Short</td><td>9 (9.7 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Median PSA at salvage [range]</td><td>3.75 [0.41–19]</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Age at relapse</td><td>70 [54–84]</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Tobacco smoking status</td><td></td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>Active</td><td>15 (16.3 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Former smoker</td><td>14 (15.2 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never smoker</td><td>63 (68.5 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>History of TURP</td><td>3 (3.2 %)</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Cardiovascular risk factors</td><td>58 (61.7 %)</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>History of inflammatory bowel disease</td><td>0</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Performance status at relapse</td><td></td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>0</td><td>68 (78.2 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>19 (21.8 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hormone sensitivity at relapse</td><td></td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Hormone sensitive</td><td>90 (95.7 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Castrate resistant</td><td>4 (4.3 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residual urinary toxicity at relapse</td><td></td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1</td><td>42 (45.7 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Grade 2</td><td>5 (5.4 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residual gastro-intestinal toxicity at relapse</td><td></td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1</td><td>5 (5.5 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residual sexual toxicity at relapse</td><td></td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1</td><td>10 (20.8 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Grade 2</td><td>17 (35.4 %)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Grade 3</td><td>9 (18.8 %)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NCCN = National Comprehensive Cancer Network; EBRT = External beam radiotherapy; IMRT = Intensity modulated radiotherapy; PSA = prostate specific antigen; TURP = Transurethral resection of the prostate.

## Results

A total of 94 patients were included. Patients' characteristics are presented in Table 1. All patients but one had pathologically confirmed relapse (92/93). Pre BT work up consisted in Choline PET/CT for 93 % of patients (followed by PET-PSMA for 1 patient), conventional CT + bone scintigraphy for 4 % of patients and prostatic MRI for 98 % of patients. All patients were node negative on pre-BT work up.

Eighteen patients (19 %) underwent a rectoscopy and twelve patients a cystoscopy (13 %) prior to salvage BT to check the absence of residual radiation rectitis/cystitis. None of the patients had a grade 3 or higher urinary or GI toxicity after primary radiotherapy.

Salvage BT implant volume was WG (70 %) with a dose prescription

<table><caption>**Table 2**

Prescription dose and constraints to OARs from salvage brachytherapy.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dose-Volume Parameters</th><th>WG + Boost</th><th>WG</th><th>HG/UF</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Activity (at implant date in µGy m<sup>2</sup>/h)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.509</td><td>0.509</td></tr><tr><td>Prescription dose (Gy)</td><td>90 WG/144<br>Boost</td><td>120</td><td>145<br>(GTV)</td></tr><tr><td>D90% (Gy) main volume</td><td>90 ≤ D90 ≤ 144</td><td>≥ 150</td><td>≥ 180</td></tr><tr><td>V100 (%)</td><td>≥ 99.5 %</td><td>≥ 99.5 %</td><td>≥ 99.5 %</td></tr><tr><td>V150 (%)</td><td>≤ 45 %</td><td>≤ 50 %</td><td>≤ 50 %</td></tr><tr><td>V200 (%)</td><td>≤ 10 %</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>D90% (Gy) Boost</td><td>≥ 144</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urethra D30 (Gy)</td><td>&lt; 200</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urethra D10 (Gy)</td><td>&lt; 150</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urethra D0.1 cc (% of prescribed dose)</td><td></td><td>≤150 %</td><td>≤150 %</td></tr><tr><td>Rectum D2cc (% of prescribed dose)</td><td></td><td>≤100 %</td><td>≤100 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

WG = Whole Gland; HG = Hemigland; UF = Ultrafocal.

<table><caption>**Table 3**

Technical data from salvage brachytherapy.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>All patients</th><th>WG + Boost</th><th>WG</th><th>HG/UF</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Characteristic</td><td>Median [min – max]</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CTV volume (cc)</td><td>18.1 [4.9 – 50.7]</td><td>20.7 [11.6–28.7]</td><td>18.1 [7.1–50.7]</td><td>7.3 [4.9–17.4]</td></tr><tr><td>Number of seeds</td><td>39 [18 – 71]</td><td>40 [25–50]</td><td>40 [25–71]</td><td>24 [18–45]</td></tr><tr><td>D90 (% of prescribed dose)</td><td>129.1 [116.0 – 221.9]</td><td>155 [116–222]</td><td>128 [121–179]</td><td>126 [121–132]</td></tr><tr><td>D100 (% of prescribed dose)</td><td>97.3 [64.7 – 119.5]</td><td>104 [65–119]</td><td>96 [75–113]</td><td>86 [73–100]</td></tr><tr><td>V100</td><td>100.0 [93.8 – 100]</td><td>100 [94–100]</td><td>100 [97–100]</td><td>100 [98–100]</td></tr><tr><td>V150</td><td>63.6 [36.4 – 97.0]</td><td>92 [36–97]</td><td>61 [51–92]</td><td>65 [58–74]</td></tr><tr><td>V200</td><td>25.1 [17.0 – 68.7]</td><td>56 [30–69]</td><td>24 [17–51]</td><td>25 [18–38]</td></tr><tr><td>Urethra D0.1 cc (% of prescribed dose)</td><td>137.0 [90.8 – 204.1]</td><td>177 [148–204]</td><td>135 [121–179]</td><td>108 [91–138]</td></tr><tr><td>Rectum D0.1 cc (% of prescribed dose)</td><td>90.2 [26.1 – 167.2]</td><td>126 [86–158]</td><td>86 [26–167]</td><td>84 [60–121]</td></tr><tr><td>Rectum D2cc (% of prescribed dose)</td><td>54.5 [16.8 – 94.2]</td><td>79 [48–94]</td><td>52 [17–83]</td><td>46 [32–63]</td></tr></tbody></table>

WG = Whole Gland; HG = Hemigland; UF = Ultrafocal.

of 120 Gy for a large majority of patients; WG + boost (20 %) with a dose prescription of 90 Gy to the whole gland and 144 Gy to an MRI-based GTV; or a partial volume (HG or UF) (10 %) with a dose prescription of 120 Gy (or 145 Gy for 1 patient only) (Fig. 1). Salvage BT was associated with a short (6 months) hormone deprivation therapy for 32 % of the patients.

## Efficacy

With a median follow-up of 34.3 months (range: 0—182.2 months), 32 % of patients had a biochemical relapse, 21 % of patients presented with a 2nd local relapse, 13 % a nodal relapse and 9 % a distant relapse. Median PSA nadir was 0.11 ng/ml [Q1 – Q3: 0.02—0.37]. Failure-free survival was 82 % at 2 years and 66 % at 3 years in the entire population. No significant difference in efficacy was observed between the three implant volume groups (Fig. 2).

On univariate analysis, castration resistance at relapse was a negative prognostic factor.

EAU prognostic group and Gleason at relapse were significantly associated with bPFS on univariate analysis in hormone sensitive patients only. On multivariate analysis (Table 4), hormonosensitivity at
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the different implant volume groups.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Progression free survival according to implant volume.</figcaption></figure>

relapse and EAU prognostic group were the only two factors significantly associated with biochemical progression free survival (bPFS).

After relapse, 70 % of patients received a first-generation androgen deprivation therapy, 10 % a 3rd local treatment and one patient received a second-generation androgen deprivation therapy.

During follow-up, 7 patients died, 2 from prostate cancer, 5 from other causes (two from other neoplasms, none of which were in the pelvis, one from unknown cause).

## Toxicity

Few immediate complications of salvage BT were reported: three patients had a urinary infection (Grade 2), five patients suffered from urinary retention (two Grade 1 and three Grade 2) and six patients presented with hematuria (five Grade 1 and one Grade 2).

Acute grade 2 urinary and gastro-intestinal toxicities were reported in 46.1 % and 2.2 % of patients respectively. No Grade 3 + acute toxicities were reported.

Late Grade 2 + urinary and gastro-intestinal toxicity was reported in 63.0 % and 6.2 % of patients respectively, including ten (12.3 %) and one (1.2 %) Grade 3 toxicities (Table 5). No late Grade 4 toxicity nor fistula were reported. The most reported urinary symptoms were

chronic retention (43.2 % Grade 2 + ) and frequency (30.9 % Grade 2). During follow-up, 13 patients had to undergo invasive procedures for late toxicity: three patients had a urinary catheter for clot removal (hematuria), five patients had a ureteral dilation, and eight patients had a trans-urethral prostate resection.

No statistically significant difference was observed in late toxicity between implant volume groups. Late Grade 2 + urinary toxicity occurred in 36/66 patients with whole gland implantation (54.5 %), 11/19 patients with whole gland implantation with a boost (57.9 %) and 4/9 patients with partial implantation (hemigland or ultrafocal) (44.4 %).

All late Grade 2 + gastro-intestinal toxicities occurred in patients with whole gland implantation.

## Discussion

The two-year bPFS in our study was 82 % with severe late GU/GI toxicity rates of 12 % and 1 % respectively, comparable to previously published reports of salvage LDR BT (Table 6), showing that this is a reasonable therapeutic option in this setting.

Patients with a rising PSA after definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer should undergo comprehensive imaging assessment and those with no distant disease and biopsy proven local recurrence in the
<table><caption>**Table 4**
Univariate and multivariate analyses for biochemical progression free survival.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Patients' characteristics</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Univariate</th><th colspan="2">Multivariate</th></tr><tr><th>HR (95 % CI)</th><th>p</th><th>HR (95 % CI)</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">EAU prognostic group</td><td>Adequate for salvage RP</td><td>1</td><td>0.0849</td><td>1</td><td>0.0266</td></tr><tr><td>Not adequate for salvage RP</td><td>2.07 (0.91; 4.73)</td><td></td><td>3.22 (1.25; 8.28)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Time between first RT and salvage BT</td><td>&gt; 10y</td><td>1</td><td>0.5652</td><td>1</td><td>0.0807</td></tr><tr><td>5-10y</td><td>0.82 (0.41; 1.63)</td><td></td><td>0.47 (0.20; 1.11)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Volume of implant</td><td>Whole gland + boost</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>0.1993</td></tr><tr><td>Hemigland + Ultrafocal</td><td>1.98 (0.57; 6.88)</td><td>0.2807</td><td>2.87 (0.76; 10.93)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Whole gland</td><td>1.08 (0.48; 2.44)</td><td>0.8557</td><td>0.66 (0.27; 1.64)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Hormone sensitivity at relapse</td><td>Yes</td><td>1</td><td>0.0026</td><td>1</td><td>0.0007</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>5.51 (1.82; 16.71)</td><td></td><td>15.67 (3.81; 64.50)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Gleason score at relapse</td><td>&le;7</td><td>1</td><td>0.1077</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8-10</td><td>2.11 (0.85; 5.24)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">PSA at relapse</td><td>&lt; 10 ng/mL</td><td>1</td><td>0.1842</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 10 ng/mL</td><td>2.26 (0.68; 7.51)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Initial high risk</td><td>No</td><td>1</td><td>0.3743</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1.36 (0.69; 2.69)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

HR = Hazard Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; EAU = European Association of Eurology; RP = Radical Prostatectomy; BT = Brachytherapy; PSA = Prostate Specific Antigen.

<table><caption>**Table 5**
Acute and late toxicities.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Grade 1</th><th>Grade 2</th><th>Grade 3</th><th>Grades 4-5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Acute GU</td><td>66 (74 %)</td><td>41 (66 %)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Acute GI</td><td>18 (20 %)</td><td>2 (2 %)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Late GU</td><td>25 (31 %)</td><td>41 (51 %)</td><td>10 (12 %)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Late GI</td><td>26 (32 %)</td><td>4 (5 %)</td><td>1 (1 %)</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

GU = genito-urinary; GI = gastro-intestinal.

prostate may be eligible to local salvage therapy. While multiple salvage treatment options are available, a significant number of patients in this context are often offered lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, which is purely palliative in nature and comes with substantial morbidity [18,19]. Data from the Spanish Registry of Prostate Cancer (RECAP) revealed in 2016 that over 70 % of patients who experienced biochemical failure (BF) following radiotherapy received ADT, while only 6 % received salvage BT [20].

A systematic review and *meta*-analysis comparing the efficacy and toxicity of all possible salvage treatments (salvage RP, salvage HIFU, salvage cryotherapy, SBRT, salvage LDR brachytherapy, and salvage HDR brachytherapy) in patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary definitive radiation therapy, found no significant differences in Recurrence Free Survival (RFS) at 5 years between RP and other salvage modalities [21]. The severe GU toxicity rates were highest for HIFU and RP, exceeding 21 % and to a lesser extent for Cryotherapy with 15 %, whereas it ranged from 5.6 % to 9.6 % with re-irradiation. Severe GI toxicity rates were relatively low with all modalities, ranging from 0 % to 2.1 %, seemingly favoring HDR-brachytherapy. In this *meta*-

analysis, two year and five-year PFS in LDR-BT studies were 79 % and 53 % respectively, while severe (≥grade 3) genitourinary toxicity rate was 9.1 %, significantly lower than the 21 % rate observed in RP studies (p = 0.001).

The results presented in our study are consistent with other salvage LDR BT studies, for example in the prospective phase II trial RTOG/NRG 0526, 2-year bPFS was approximately 80 % (82 % in present study) with 14 % late GU/GI toxicity (13 % in present study). With a longer median follow-up of 6.7 years, DFS was 61 % and 33 % at 5 and 10 years respectively with a 10-year bPFS of 54 % [22,23]. However, the study only included patients with low to intermediate initial risk, which was not the case in our cohort (54 % of initial high risk) and toxicity is probably underestimated in our study due to its retrospective nature. Interestingly, the only factor predictive of severe late adverse events in this study was the volume of prostate that receives 100 % of the prescription dose (V100), suggesting that partial salvage therapy may improve toxicity outcomes, while it was not found in our study.

Of note, the present study is to our knowledge the largest study evaluating patients with partial as well as whole gland LDR salvage BT. However, this study failed to demonstrate significant improvement in toxicity with a partial implantation volume, although no patient with ultrafocal or hemigland implantation had grade 3 or more GU/GI toxicity. This may be due to a lack of power given the relatively small subset of patients receiving focal salvage BT in our study. Indeed, a narrative review on focal versus whole gland salvage BT conducted by the MD Anderson found lower median rate of grade 3 or higher GU toxicity (4 % vs 12 %) and GI toxicity (0 vs 3 %) with focal compared to WG salvage BT [24]. For example, Hsu et al evaluated feasibility and clinical outcomes of partial salvage LDR-BT and found minimal treatment-related toxicity, with no grade 3 GI/GU toxicity, and a local control comparable to conventional salvage with 3 year PFS of 71.4 % [25]. Similarly, Peters et al reported a 60 % 3-year bPFS with only one G3 GU toxicity (urethral stricture) in 20 patients treated with focal multiparametric MRI-TRUS guided I125 salvage [26]. Another small retrospective study of focal partial salvage LDR BT showed encouraging results with a 4-years bPFS of 78 % and no grade 3 + GU/GI toxicity [27]. More studies of focal salvage HDR BT reported very low rates of grade 3 toxicity [28–30].

The MASTER *meta*-analysis reported that salvage SBRT (sSBRT) had the lowest severe toxicity rate of all salvage treatment options with comparable RFS [21]. Nevertheless, the number of studies encompassing sSBRT in the *meta*-analysis was notably limited, and the median follow-up was relatively short at 26 months. Recently, a retrospective study with a longer median follow-up of 38.6 months showed a high incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity (32.1 % of patients) [31], statistically significantly different between focal (15 patients) and whole-gland (41 patients) sSBRT in favor of the focal treatment group (43.8 % vs. 7.1 % at 2 years; p = 0.006). The size of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) was an independent prognostic factor of the occurrence of grade 3 + toxicity. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in local control, PFS or bPFS between the two volume groups.

Early results of focal sSBRT series are promising with for example a reported late grade 2 GU toxicity rate of only 4 % (no grade 3 toxicity except for one G3 GI acute toxicity) in a prospective study on ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT and MRI guided focal sSBRT, with a two-years bPFS of 80 % [32].

The only prognostic factors significantly associated with bPFS on the multivariate analysis in our study were hormonosensitivity at relapse and EAU prognostic group. Nevertheless, other studies regarding LDR BT in this setting found initial PSA [33], PSA at salvage [34,35], PSA doubling time (DT) [36–38], ISUP score [33,36] and disease-free interval following primary therapy [35,37], to be prognostic factors associated with biochemical relapse-free survival.

In a Delphi consensus on salvage BT by the Uro-GEC group of GEC-ESTRO (Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie – European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology), international experts collectively agreed
<table><caption>**Table 6**

Literature review of salvage low dose rate brachytherapy.</caption><thead><tr><th>Author<br>Year</th><th>N</th><th>Design</th><th>Proportion of<br>high risk</th><th>Median PSA at<br>relapse (ng/ml)<br>[range]</th><th>Prescription<br>dose (Gy)</th><th>Treated<br>volume</th><th>ADT<br>use</th><th>Staging<br>method at<br>relapse</th><th>bPFS</th><th>G3 +<br>late GU<br>tox</th><th>G3 +<br>late GI<br>tox</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grado<br>1999 [55]</td><td>49</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>5.6 [1.5-79.1]</td><td>160</td><td>WG</td><td>16 %</td><td>Bone scan +<br>CT</td><td>48 % 3y<br>34 % 5y</td><td>14 %</td><td>2 %</td></tr><tr><td>Beyer<br>1999 [56]</td><td>17</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>2.2 [0.3-27]</td><td>120/90</td><td>WG</td><td>47 %</td><td>Bone scan<br>+/- CT (8/<br>17)</td><td>53 % 5y</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td></tr><tr><td>Koutrouvelis<br>2003 [57]</td><td>31</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>100-120<br>(103Pd) /<br>120-144 (125I)</td><td>WG +/-<br>SV</td><td>97 %</td><td>NR</td><td>87 %</td><td>13 %</td><td>6 %</td></tr><tr><td>Wong<br>2006 [58]</td><td>17</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>4.7 [1.2-11.8]</td><td>126</td><td>WG</td><td>100<br>%</td><td>NR</td><td>75 % 4y</td><td>47 %</td><td>6 %</td></tr><tr><td>Nguyen<br>2007 [47]</td><td>25</td><td>Prospective</td><td>0 %</td><td>5.5 [1.4-11.6]</td><td>137</td><td>Partial</td><td>0 %</td><td>Pelvic CT or<br>MRI + Bone<br>scan</td><td>70 % 4y</td><td>20 %</td><td>20 %</td></tr><tr><td>Lee<br>2008 [59]</td><td>21</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>3.8</td><td>90</td><td>WG</td><td>57 %</td><td>Bone scan +<br>CT</td><td>94 % 3y<br>38 % 5y</td><td>0 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Aaronson<br>2009 [60]</td><td>24</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>3.41 [0.3-10]</td><td>144 PTV/108<br>WG</td><td>WG +<br>Boost</td><td>17 %</td><td>Bone scan +<br>MRI</td><td>89 % 3y</td><td>4 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Burri<br>2010 [34]</td><td>37</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>24 %</td><td>5.6 [1.7-35.0]</td><td>110 (103Pd) /<br>135 (125I)</td><td>WG</td><td>83.7<br>%</td><td>CT + Bone<br>scan</td><td>65 % 5y<br>54 % 10y</td><td>11 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Moman<br>2010 [36]</td><td>31</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>11.4 (+/- 7.6)<br>(mean +/- SD)</td><td>145</td><td>WG</td><td>16.1<br>%</td><td>CT + Bone<br>scan</td><td>51 % 1y<br>20 % 5y</td><td>20 %</td><td>6 %</td></tr><tr><td>Hsu<br>2013 [25]</td><td>15</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>0 %</td><td>3.5 [0.9-5.6]</td><td>144</td><td>Partial</td><td>0 %</td><td>CT + bone<br>scan</td><td>71 % 3y</td><td>0 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Vargas<br>2013 [61]</td><td>69</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>100</td><td>WG</td><td>89.9<br>%</td><td>CT + Bone<br>scan</td><td>67 % 5y</td><td>8.7 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Henriquez<br>2014 [35]</td><td>56 (37<br>LDR)</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>28.5 %</td><td>3.7 [1.1-30]</td><td>145 (120-160)</td><td>WG</td><td>16 %</td><td>NR</td><td>77 % 5y</td><td>24 %</td><td>2.7 %</td></tr><tr><td>Peters<br>2014 [26]</td><td>20</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>60 %</td><td>4.7 [0.3-14]</td><td>≥ 144</td><td>Partial</td><td>40 %</td><td>Choline-PET<br>(50 %)</td><td>60 % 5y</td><td>5 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Lacy<br>2016 [62]</td><td>21</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>0 %</td><td>6.3 [1-19]</td><td>108-144</td><td>Partial</td><td>10 %</td><td>CT + bone<br>scan</td><td>60 % 3y</td><td>14 %</td><td>5 %</td></tr><tr><td>Peters<br>2016 [37]</td><td>62</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>8.6 [0.1-92.6]</td><td>145</td><td>WG</td><td>34 %</td><td>Bone scan +<br>CT or MRI</td><td>46 % 3y<br>28 % 5y</td><td>30 %</td><td>8 %</td></tr><tr><td>Kunogi<br>2016 [27]</td><td>12</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>0 %</td><td>4.1 [2.9-8.2]</td><td>145</td><td>Partial</td><td>25 %</td><td>CT + bone<br>scan</td><td>78 % 4y</td><td>0 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Kollmeier<br>2017 [38]</td><td>98 (37<br>LDR)</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>3.7 [0-59]</td><td>125 (103Pd) /<br>144 (125I)</td><td>WG</td><td>46 %</td><td>NR</td><td>60.2 %</td><td>2.7 %</td><td>0 %</td></tr><tr><td>Smith<br>2020 [33]</td><td>108</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>NR</td><td>5.3 [0.1-38.4]</td><td>100 (80-124)</td><td>WG</td><td>94 %</td><td>CT + Bone<br>scan +/- MRI<br>+/- PET</td><td>63.1 % 5y<br>52 % 10y</td><td>15.7 %</td><td>2.8 %</td></tr><tr><td>Pons-Llanas<br>2020 [63]</td><td>30</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>20 %</td><td>3.5 [2.86-5.74]</td><td>120-130</td><td>WG</td><td>20 %</td><td>Choline PET-<br>CT + MRI</td><td>86.7 % 1y<br>56.7 % 3y<br>53.3 % 5y</td><td>16.7 %</td><td>3.3 %</td></tr><tr><td>Crook<br>2021<br>[22,23]</td><td>92</td><td>Prospective</td><td>0 %</td><td>7.3 [5.5-9.3]</td><td>140/120</td><td>WG (2 pts<br>partial)</td><td>16 %</td><td>Bone scan +<br>CT</td><td>54 % 10y<br>~80 % 2y</td><td>12.6 %</td><td>1.1 %</td></tr><tr><td>Present study</td><td>94</td><td>Retrospective</td><td>54.3 %</td><td>3.75 [0.41-19]</td><td>120; 90/145</td><td>WG (70<br>%)<br>WG +<br>Boost (20<br>%)<br>Partial<br>(10 %)</td><td>32 %</td><td>Choline PET-<br>CT + MRI</td><td>82 % 2y<br>66 % 3y</td><td>12 %</td><td>1 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

PSA = Prostate specific antigen; GU = Genito-urinary; GI = Gastro-intestinal; ADT = Androgen deprivation therapy; bPFS = Biochemical progression free survival; NR = Not reported; SD = Standard derivation; WG = Whole gland; SV = Seminal Vesicles; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging.

upon following selection criteria (level of agreement expressed as percentage): ECOG/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 (89 %), ≤ T3b both at primary and at time of relapse (81 %), Gleason score at primary treatment ≤ 8 (95 %), maximum of International Prostate Score Symptom (IPSS) from 8 to 15 (88 %), 12–24 biopsies should be performed at relapse (83 %) [39].

The prognostic value of the pre-salvage biopsy Gleason score (GS) remains debatable. Indeed, post-irradiation Gleason score grading is challenging due to the well described effects of radiotherapy on the histological appearance of tumor and non-tumor prostatic tissue. A study comparing pathological results from biopsy and surgery in patients undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy found that 58 % of patients had upgrading of their pathology after surgery [40]. However,

pre-salvage biopsy GS was a strong prognostic risk factor for progression free survival in a systematic review of salvage radical prostatectomy and thus seemed relevant to include in the analysis [41].

In a more recent Delphi consensus published in 2023, thirty international experts achieved consensus on several areas of patient selection, including: a minimum of 2–3 years from initial RT to salvage BT and that MRI and PSMA PET should be obtained prior to reirradiation [42]. In both studies, no consensus was obtained regarding the optimal dose schedule or treatment volume. In our cohort, no dose-effect relationship could be identified but patients receiving different doses had different implant volumes making any comparison difficult. Well conducted prospective studies are needed to answer remaining questions regarding type and technique of salvage BT.
Our study has some weaknesses. Firstly, the subdivision of our patients into three implant volume groups (whole gland, whole gland + boost or partial gland) aimed to help define the best treatment option but this in turn introduces a degree of heterogeneity into the cohort. Secondly, most patients in our study were staged using MRI and Choline PET/CT which compare favorably to conventional imaging with CT scan and bone scan but may have missed low-volume metastasis which can be diagnosed by novel PET imaging with prostate-specific radio pharmaceuticals. Thirdly, due to the relatively short follow-up, late toxicities may have been underestimated.

## Conclusion

Salvage BT surely is gaining interest for radiorecurrent prostate cancer [43-49]. The present study as well as current literature validate salvage LDR brachytherapy as an interesting option for patients with isolated local recurrence of prostate cancer after definitive radiation therapy, with a toxicity profile comparing favorably with other local salvage options and potential for long-term disease control. However, these findings rely on essentially retrospective and relatively small studies which provides poor evidence level, and the results of ongoing prospective studies are awaited. Furthermore, the non-negligible risk of severe toxicity after salvage BT and especially late urinary toxicity remains a concern. Many ongoing clinical trials aim to evaluate further focal salvage BT with potentially less adverse effects, such as F-Sharp (NCT03312972) [50], FocaSaBra (NCT05715502) [51], PROSALBRA [52], or the SalvageHDR study (NCT03246802) and a phase I/II trial (NCT01583920) [53,54]. In the meantime, salvage brachytherapy should be performed on carefully selected patients in experienced centers ideally within randomized clinical trials or prospective registry studies.

## Patient consent statement

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Institut Curie approved this study.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

Y. Meraouna: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. P. Blanchard: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. S. Losa: Writing – review & editing. A. Labib: Writing – review & editing. S. Krhili: Writing – review & editing. P. Pommier: Writing – review & editing. G. Crehange: Writing – review & editing. T. Flam: Writing – review & editing. J-M. Cosset: Writing – review & editing. M. Kissel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## References

[1] D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, or Interstitial Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969-74.

[2] Kupelian PA, Mahadevan A, Reddy CA, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Use of different definitions of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy changes

conclusions about relative treatment efficacy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 2006 Sep;68(3):593-8.

[3] Dearmaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, Khoo V, Birtle A, Bloomfield D, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHIP trial. Lancet Oncol 2016 Aug;17(8):1047-60.

[4] Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-24.

[5] Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L, Thellenberg-Karlsson C, Hoyer M, Lagerlund M, et al. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019 Aug 3;394(10196):385-95.

[6] Duchesne GM, Woo HH, Bassett JK, Bowe SJ, D'Este C, Frydenberg M, et al. Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016 Jun;17(6):727-37.

[7] Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Saladini G, Zattoni F, Colletti PM, et al. Choline PET or PET/CT and Biochemical Relapse of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2013 May;38(5):305-14.

[8] Fanti S, Minozzi S, Castellucci P, Balduzzi S, Herrmann K, Krause BJ, et al. PET/CT with 11C-choline for evaluation of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: meta-analysis and critical review of available data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016 Jan;43(1):55-69.

[9] Caroli P, Sandler I, Matteucci F, De Giorgi U, Uccelli L, Celli M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical treatment: prospective results in 314 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018 Nov;45(12): 2035-44.

[10] Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, Williams M, Udovicich C, Vela I, et al. Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer—Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-avid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020 Apr;77(4):403-17.

[11] Van Der Poel H, Grivas N, Van Leeuwen P, Heijmink S, Schoots I. The role of MRI for detection and staging of radio- and focal therapy-recurrent prostate cancer. World J Urol 2019 Aug;37(8):1485-90.

[12] Cosset JM, Flam T, Belin L, Thiounn N, Pierrat N, Pontvert D, et al. Long-term results of permanent implant prostate cancer brachytherapy: A single-institution study of 675 patients treated between 1999 and 2003. Cancer/radiothérapie 2016 Jun;20(4):261-7.

[13] Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 2021 Feb 1;79(2):243-62.

[14] Roach M, Hanks G, Thames H, Schellhammer P, Shipley WU, Sokol GH, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol 2006 Jul;65(4): 965-74.

[15] EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. ISBN 978-94-92671-19-6.

[16] Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). 2017:155. 2017.

[17] Centre Georges Francois Leclerc. Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Irradiation Treated With Brachytherapy Remedial: Phase 2 Study [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2023 Oct [cited 2024 Jan 1]. Report No.: NCT01956058. Available from: https:// clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01956058.

[18] Schwandt A, Gupta JA. Complications of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2009 May;19(3):322.

[19] Gupta D, Lee Chuy K, Yang JC, Bates M, Lombardo M, Steingart RM. Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer. J Oncol Pract 2018 Oct;14(10):580-7.

[20] González-San Segundo C, Jové J, Zapatero A, Pastor-Peidro J, Vázquez ML, Casana M, et al. Survival after biochemical failure in prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: Spanish Registry of Prostate Cancer (RECAP) database outcomes. Clin Transl Oncol off Publ Fed Span Oncol Soc Natl Cancer Inst Mex 2019 Aug;21 (8):1044-51.

[21] Valle LF, Lehrer EJ, Markovic D, Elashoff D, Levin-Einstein R, Karnes RJ, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Local Salvage Therapies After Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer (MASTER). Eur Urol 2021 Sep;80(3):280-92.

[22] Crook J, Rodgers JP, Pisansky TM, Trabulsi EJ, Amin MB, Bice W, et al. Salvage Low Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy: Clinical Outcomes of a Phase II Trial for Local Recurrence after External Beam Radiotherapy (NRG Oncology/0526). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022 Apr 1;112(5):1115-22.

[23] Crook JM, Zhang P, Pisansky TM, Trabulsi EJ, Amin MB, Bice W, et al. A Prospective Phase II Trial of Trans-perineal Ultrasound-Guided Brachytherapy for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer after External Beam Radiotherapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG-0526). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019 Feb 1;103(2):335-43.

[24] Andring LM, Teh BS, Butler EB, Farach AM. Focal versus whole gland salvage brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer in the prostate specific membrane antigen PET era: a narrative review. Chin Clin Oncol 2023 Jun 30;12(3):26.

[25] Hsu CC, Hsu H, Pickett B, Crehange G, Hsu ICJ, Dea R, et al. Feasibility of MR imaging/MR spectroscopy-planned focal partial salvage permanent prostate implant (PPI) for localized recurrence after initial PPI for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013 Feb 1;85(2):370-7.

[26] Peters M, Maenhout M, van der Voort van Zyp JRN, Moerland MA, Moman MR, Steuten LMG, et al. Focal salvage iodine-125 brachytherapy for prostate cancer
recurrences after primary radiotherapy: a retrospective study regarding toxicity, biochemical outcome and quality of life. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol. Oncol 2014 Jul;112(1):77-82.

[27] Kunogi H, Wakumoto Y, Yamaguchi N, Horie S, Sasai K. Focal partial salvage low-dose-rate brachytherapy for local recurrent prostate cancer after permanent prostate brachytherapy with a review of the literature. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2016 Jun;8(3):165-72.

[28] Yamada Y, Kollmeier MA, Pei X, Kan CC, Cohen GN, Donat SM, 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 Mar 1;13(2):111-6.

[29] Maenhout M, Peters M, van Vulpen M, Moerland MA, Meijer RP, van den Bosch MAAJ, et al. Focal MRI-Guided Salvage High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy in Patients With Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2017 Dec;16(6):1194-201.

[30] Slevin F, Hodgson S, Rodda SL, Bownes P, Bottomley D, Adiotomre E, et al. Efficacy and toxicity outcomes for patients treated with focal salvage high dose rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2020 Mar;27(23):20-6.

[31] Miszczyk M, Kraszkiewicz M, Moll M, Kaminiów K, Sobel S, Dolla L, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Intraprostatic Relapse after Definitive Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Patterns of Failure and Association between Volume of Irradiation and Late Toxicity. Cancers 2023 Jan;15(4):1180.

[32] Bergamin S, Eade T, Kneebone A, Booth J, Hsiao E, Schembri GP, et al. Interim Results of a Prospective Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Directed Focal Stereotactic Reirradiation Trial for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020 Dec 1;108(5):1172-8.

[33] Smith WH, Cesaretti J, Chin CP, Terk M, Stock RG. Salvage low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer recurrence following definitive external beam radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2021 Feb;155:42-7.

[34] Burri RJ, Stone NN, Unger P, Stock RG. Long-Term Outcome and Toxicity of Salvage Brachytherapy for Local Failure After Initial Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol 2010 Aug;77(5):1338-44.

[35] Henríquez I, Sancho G, Hervás A, Guix B, Pera J, Gutierrez C, et al. Salvage brachytherapy in prostate local recurrence after radiation therapy: predicting factors for control and toxicity. Radiat Oncol 2014 Apr 30;9(1):102.

[36] Moman MR, Van Der Poel HG, Battermann JJ, Moerland MA, Van Vulpen M. Treatment outcome and toxicity after salvage 125-I implantation for prostate cancer recurrences after primary 125-I implantation and external beam radiotherapy. Brachytherapy 2010 Apr;9(2):119-25.

[37] Peters M, van der Zyp JRN, van V, Moerland MA, Hoekstra CJ, Pol S van de, Westendorp H, et al. Development and internal validation of a multivariable prediction model for biochemical failure after whole-gland salvage iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2016 May 1; 15(3):296-305.

[38] Kollmeier MA, McBride S, Taggar A, Anderson E, Lin M, Pei X, 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 Nov 1;16(6): 1091-8.

[39] Kaljouw E, Pieters BR, Kovács G, Hoskin PJ. A Delphi consensus study on salvage brachytherapy for prostate cancer relapse after radiotherapy, a Uro-GEC study. Radiother Oncol 2016 Jan;118(1):122-30.

[40] Meeks JJ, Walker M, Bernstein M, Kent M, Eastham JA. Accuracy of post-radiotherapy biopsy before salvage radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013;112(3): 308-12.

[41] Chade DC, Eastham J, Graefen M, Hu JC, Karnes RJ, Klotz L, et al. Cancer Control and Functional Outcomes of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Radiation-recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol 2012 May 1;61 (5):961-71.

[42] Corkum MT, Buyyounouski MK, Chang AJ, Chung HT, Chung P, Cox BW, et al. Salvage prostate brachytherapy in radiorecurrent prostate cancer: An international Delphi consensus study. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2023 Jul; 184:109672.

[43] Murgic J, Morton G, Loblaw A, D'Alimonte L, Ravi A, Wronski M, 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;01:102(3):561-7.

[44] van Son MJ, Peters M, Moerland MA, Lagendijk JJW, Eppinga WSC, Shah TT, et al. MRI-Guided Ultrafocal Salvage High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Localized

Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: Updated Results of 50 Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020 Jan 30.

[45] Yamada Y, Kollmeier MA, Pei X, Kan CC, Cohen GN, Donat SM, 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 Apr;13(2):111-6.

[46] Crook JM, Zhang P, Pisansky TM, Trabulsi EJ, Amin MB, Bice W, 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;01;103(2):335-43.

[47] Nguyen PL, Chen MH, D'Amico AV, Tempy CM, Steele GS, Albert M, 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 Oct 1;110(7):1485-92.

[48] Mäkelä L, Bergroth R, Taipale L, Tornberg S, Visapää H. Salvage HDR brachytherapy for prostate cancer: a high-volume center experience on 100 consecutive patients. Scand J Urol 2023;57(1-6):36-40.

[49] Shen B, Liu J, Wu D, Guo J. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of high-dose rate brachytherapy for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Strahlenther Onkol [Internet]. 2024 Feb 22 [cited 2024 Feb 23]; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-024-02205-x.

[50] Solanki AA. F-SHARP: A Phase I/II Trial of Focal Salvage High-dose-rate BRachytherapy for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated With Prior Radiotherapy [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2020 May [cited 2023 Sep 5]. Report No.: NCT03312972. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT03312972.

[51] The Greater Poland Cancer Centre. Assessment of the Toxicity of Focal Salvage Brachytherapy of Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Prior Radiotherapy - the Prospective Focal Salvage Brachytherapy Study (FocaSaBra) [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2023 Jan [cited 2023 Sep 5]. Report No.: NCT05715502. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05715502.

[52] Buus S. Salvage High Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Local Recurrence in Prostate Cancer: A Phase II Trial [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2021 Jul [cited 2023 Sep 5]. Report No.: NCT04231006. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT04231006.

[53] Crook J. High Dose Rate Partial Prostate Brachytherapy as Salvage Treatment for Local Failures After Previous External Beam Radiotherapy [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2021 Jun [cited 2023 Sep 5]. Report No.: NCT03246802. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03246802.

[54] Chung DH. Pilot Study of Focal Salvage HDR Prostate Brachytherapy [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 May [cited 2023 Sep 5]. Report No.: NCT01583920. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01583920.

[55] Grado GL, Collins JM, Kriegshauser JS, Balch CS, Grado MM, Swanson GP, et al. Salvage brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer after radiotherapy failure. Urology 1999 Jan;53(1):2-10.

[56] Beyer DC. Permanent brachytherapy as salvage treatment for recurrent prostate cancer. Urology 1999 Nov;54(5):880-3.

[57] Koutrouvelis P, Hendricks F, Lailas N, Gil-Montero G, Sehn J, Khawand N, et al. Salvage Reimplantation in Patient with Local Recurrent Prostate Carcinoma after Brachytherapy with Three Dimensional Computed Tomography-Guided Permanent Pararectal Implant. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2003 Aug 1;2(4):339-44.

[58] Wong WW, Buskirk SJ, Schild SE, Prussak KA, Davis BJ. Combined prostate brachytherapy and short-term androgen deprivation therapy as salvage therapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam irradiation. J Urol 2006 Nov; 176(5):2020-4.

[59] Lee HK, Adams MT, Motta J. Salvage prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer failure after external beam radiation therapy. Brachytherapy 2008 Jan;7(1): 17-21.

[60] Aaronson DS, Yamasaki I, Gottschalk A, Speight J, Hsu IC, Pickett B, et al. Salvage permanent perineal radioactive-seed implantation for treating recurrence of localized prostate adenocarcinoma after external beam radiotherapy. BJU Int 2009;104(5):600-4.

[61] Vargas C, Swartz D, Vashi A, Blasser M, Kasraeian A, Cesaretti J, et al. Salvage brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2014 Jan;13(1):53-8.

[62] Lacy JM, Wilson WA, Bole R, Chen L, Meigooni AS, Rowland RG, et al. Salvage Brachytherapy for Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer following Primary Brachytherapy. Prostate Cancer 2016;2016:9561494.

[63] Pons-Llanos O, Burgos-Burgos J, Roldan-Ortega S, Conde-Moreno A, Celada- Alvarez F, Ruiz-Martinez JC, et al. Salvage I-125 brachytherapy for locally-recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2020;25 (5):754-9.