			Home About us Contact

Prostate Brachytherapy (prostate + brachytherapy)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Urinary and rectal complications of contemporary permanent transperineal brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma with or without external beam radiation therapy,

CANCER, Issue 4 2004
Michael F. Sarosdy M.D.
Abstract BACKGROUND Prostate brachytherapy is increasingly used to treat prostate carcinoma, alone or combined (combination therapy) with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). This report cites the frequency and nature of urinary and rectal complications requiring unplanned interventions after contemporary brachytherapy with or without EBRT. METHODS A total of 177 consecutive patients underwent either brachytherapy (100 patients [56.5%]) or combination therapy (77 patients [43.5%]) for clinical T1-2 prostate carcinoma between July 1998 and July 2000. All the patients were analyzed with regard to disease characteristics, treatment details, and complications requiring unplanned interventions in up to 48 months of follow-up. RESULTS Catheter drainage for urinary retention was required for a median of 55 days (range, 3,330 days) in 36 patients (20%), including 24% after brachytherapy and 16% after combination therapy. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was performed at a median of 12 months (range, 8,18 months) after implantation in 5% of patients after brachytherapy and 14.5% of patients after combination therapy (P = 0.029). Colonoscopy with or without fulguration for rectal bleeding was performed in 37 of 158 patients (97 in the brachytherapy group and 61 in the combination therapy group) (23.4%) at a median of 17 months (range, 4,45 months), including 15 patients (15.5%) after brachytherapy and 22 patients (36%) after combination therapy (P = 0.002). Combination therapy resulted in fecal diversion in 6.6% of patients (P = 0.021), urinary diversion in 3.2% of patients (P = 0.148), and clean intermittent self-catheterization for recurrent stricture after multiple TURPs in 4.9% of patients (P = 0.055), none of which occurred after brachytherapy. Overall, 20.6% of patients underwent TURP or colonoscopy after brachytherapy, whereas 44.2% underwent those or more extensive unplanned procedures after combination therapy (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Complications requiring unplanned procedures may occur after brachytherapy, and may be increased significantly after brachytherapy combined with EBRT. These data reinforce the concept that quality assurance and technique are important in prostate brachytherapy, but, even when these are in place, complications can occur, especially when EBRT is added to brachytherapy. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society. [source]

Severity categories of the International Prostate Symptom Score before, and urinary morbidity after, permanent prostate brachytherapy

BJU INTERNATIONAL, Issue 1 2006
SARAH GUTMAN
OBJECTIVE To determine if the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before seed implantation, stratified into mild (0,7), moderate (8,19) and severe (>20) categories, predicts brachytherapy-related morbidity in terms of IPSS resolution, catheter dependency and the need for surgical intervention after brachytherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS From January 1998 to September 2003, 1034 consecutive patients had permanent interstitial brachytherapy for clinical stage T1b-T3a NXM0 (2002 system) prostate cancer. Of the 1034 patients, 739 (71.5%) presented with an IPSS of 0,7, 287 (27.7%) of 8,19, and eight (0.8%) of ,,20. The IPSS 8,19 cohort was further stratified into 8,14 (237 men) and 15,19 (50 men) subgroups. The median follow-up was 38.2 months. In all patients, an ,-blocker was initiated before brachytherapy and continued at least until the IPSS normalized, the latter defined as a return to within 1 point of that before implantation. A median of 21 IPSS questionnaires were obtained per patient. Several clinical, treatment and dosimetric variables were evaluated as predictors of urinary morbidity. RESULTS For the entire cohort, the IPSS peaked at a mean of 0.5 months after implantation and resolved at a mean of 1.7 months. At 5 years after brachytherapy, 90.1% of patients at risk (88.8%, 95.5%, and four of eight patients with a pre-implant IPSS of 0,7, 8,19 and ,,20, respectively) were within the IPSS 0,7 category. Compared to the pre-implant IPSS, 13 patients (8%) were assigned to a higher IPSS severity category. Neither prolonged urinary catheter dependency (>5 days; 16 patients, 1.5%) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP, 17 patients, 1.6%) depended on the pre-implant IPSS subgroup. In Cox regression analysis, IPSS resolution was best predicted by pre-implant IPSS, prolonged catheter dependency by patient age, and TURP by any catheter dependency, the maximum IPSS increase and the maximum urethral dose. CONCLUSIONS The IPSS before implantation predicted the resolution of IPSS after brachytherapy, but did not correlate with substantial urinary morbidity, including catheter dependency or the need for TURP. At 5 years after brachytherapy, 90.1% of patients at risk were assigned to the IPSS 0,7 category. [source]

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 INTERNATIONAL, Issue 1 2003
G.S. Merrick
OBJECTIVE To determine whether hormonal manipulation improves the biochemical outcome for men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer and undergoing permanent brachytherapy with or without supplemental external beam radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS From April 1995 to August 2000, 350 patients with intermediate-risk (225 men; a Gleason score of , 7 or a prostate specific antigen, PSA, level of , 10 ng/mL or clinical stage , T2b) or high-risk features (125 men; two or three of a Gleason score of , 7 or PSA , 10 ng/mL or clinical stage , T2b) underwent transperineal ultrasonography-guided permanent brachytherapy. No patient underwent pathological lymph node staging. Of these patients, 293 received supplemental external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), 141 received hormonal manipulation, with 82 having hormonal therapy for , 4 months (median 4) for cytoreduction, while 59 had neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormonal manipulation (median 8 and 12 months for intermediate- and high-risk, respectively). The median patient age was 68.5 years. No patient was lost to follow-up. The mean (sd) and median follow-up was 50 (18) and 49 months (calculated from the day of implantation). Biochemical disease-free (BDF) survival was defined using a consensus definition. The clinical variables evaluated for BDF survival included risk group, Gleason score, patient age, clinical T-stage and pretreatment PSA. Treatment variables included use of hormonal manipulation stratified into cytoreductive (, 4 months) vs adjuvant (> 4 months) regimens, supplemental EBRT, isotope and dosimetric variables. RESULTS For intermediate-risk patients, the 6-year actuarial BDF survival rates were 98%, 96% and 100% for hormone naïve, cytoreductive and adjuvant treatment, respectively (P = 0.693); for high-risk patients the respective values were 79%, 94% and 92% (P = 0.046). When stratified by pretreatment PSA, hormonal manipulation improved the outcome for patients with a PSA of , 10 ng/mL (P = 0.019), but not for those with < 10 ng/mL (P = 0.661). Hormonal status was not statistically significant in predicting biochemical outcome when stratified by Gleason score. The follow-up in hormone-naïve patients was significantly longer than that in hormonally manipulated patients, at 55 (20) vs 43 (15) months (P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis only the Gleason score predicted failure in intermediate-risk patients, while pretreatment PSA, the use of hormonal manipulation and Gleason score predicted the outcome in high-risk patients (P = 0.035). For both hormone-naïve and hormonally manipulated BDF patients, the median PSA level after implantation was < 0.1 ng/mL. CONCLUSION In patients treated by permanent prostate brachytherapy, hormonal manipulation improved the biochemical outcome for those at high-risk and those with an initial PSA of , 10 ng/mL, but not for those with intermediate-risk features. The use of hormonal therapy for> 4 months conferred no additional biochemical advantage over short-course regimens. Because the follow-up in hormone-naïve patients was longer than that for those receiving hormonal manipulation, additional follow-up will be mandatory to confirm the durability of these findings. [source]

Urinary and rectal complications of contemporary permanent transperineal brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma with or without external beam radiation therapy,

A comprehensive and novel predictive modeling technique using detailed pathology factors in men with localized prostate carcinoma

CANCER, Issue 7 2002
Louis Potters M.D.
Abstract BACKGROUND The purpose of the current study was to evaluate modeling strategies using sextant core prostate biopsy specimen data that would best predict biochemical control in patients with localized prostate carcinoma treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB). METHODS One thousand four hundred seventy,seven patients underwent PPB between 1992 and 2000. The authors restricted analysis to those patients who had sextant biopsies (n = 1073). A central pathology review was undertaken on all specimens. Treatment consisted of PPB with either I-125 or Pd-103 prescribed to 144 Gy or 140 Gy, respectively. Two hundred twenty,eight patients (21%) received PPB in combination with external radiotherapy and 333 patients (31%) received neoadjuvant hormones. In addition to clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, and pretreatment prostate specific antigen (pretx-PSA), the following detailed biopsy variables were considered: mean percentage of cancer in an involved core; maximum percentage of cancer; mean primary and secondary Gleason grades; maximum Gleason grade (primary or secondary); percentage of cancer in the apex, mid, and base; percent of cores positive; maximum primary and secondary Gleason grades in apex, mid, and base; maximum percent cancer in apex, mid, and base; maximum Gleason grade in apex, mid, and base; maximum primary Gleason grade; and maximum secondary Gleason grade. In all, 23 biopsy variables were considered. Four modeling strategies were compared. As a base model, the authors considered the pretx-PSA, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason sum as predictors. For the second model, the authors added percent of cores positive. The third modeling strategy was to use stepwise variable selection to select only those variables (from the total pool of 26) that were statistically significant. The fourth strategy was to apply principal components analysis, which has theoretical advantages over the other strategies. Principal components analysis creates component scores that account for maximum variance in the predictors. RESULTS The median followup of the study cohort was 36 months (range, 6,92), and the Kattan modification of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition was used to define PSA freedom from recurrence (PSA-FFR). The four models were compared in their ability to predict PSA-FFR as measured by the Somers D rank correlation coefficient. The Somers D rank correlation coefficients were then corrected for optimism with use of bootstrapping. The results for the four models were 0.32, 0.34, 0.37, and 0.39, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The current study shows that the use of principal components analysis with additional pathology data is a more discriminating model in predicting outcome in prostate carcinoma than other conventional methods and can also be used to model outcome predictions for patients treated with radical prostatectomy and external beam. Cancer 2002;95:1451,6. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10869 [source]