Focal brachytherapy as definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we describe the oncologic and toxicity outcomes of definitive focal brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: A PROSPERO registered study (CRD42023410170) was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies between 2000 and 2022. Two authors independently performed the initial search. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) was defined as the primary endpoint for the meta-analysis. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were conducted to calculate effect size and quantify heterogeneity. We also describe the side effects and local recurrence patterns of focal brachytherapy.

RESULTS: Ten studies were identified and included 315 patients treated using focal brachytherapy as a definitive treatment. Mean (SD) age was 67.65 (7.9) years and mean (SD) PSA was 7.15 (2.7) ng/mL. Most patients (n = 236, 75%) underwent LDR Brachytherapy and 25% received HDR brachytherapy. Among the participants, 147 (46.5%) had a Gleason score ≤6, and 169 (53.5%) had a Gleason score ≥7. Only 11 (3.5%) patients received ADT. Overall, bRFS rate at median follow-up 4 years (Range: 1-6.42 years) was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82-95%). Acute Grade ≤ 2 GU and GI toxicities were reported in 22 (7%) and 11 (3.5%) patients, respectively. Late Grade ≤ 2 GU and GI toxicity were reported in 6 (2%) and 14 (4.4%) patients, respectively. One case of prostate hemorrhage due to improper foley removal was noted but otherwise no acute or late Grade 3 or higher GI or GU toxicity related to radiotherapy was reported.

CONCLUSION: Overall, definitive focal brachytherapy has a favorable toxicity profile. Oncologic outcomes are yet to mature. The evidence is limited by the small number of studies with low patients' number, across study heterogeneity, and possibility of publication bias.