No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Permanent interstitial low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: institutional experience with implementation and predictive factors for outcome and side effects
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2023
Abstract
Introduction:
Low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR brachytherapy) with Iodine-125-seeds is an established treatment modality for low- and favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Our single institution experience in this field was retrospectively studied.
Methods:
Two-hundred sixty consecutive patient records were reviewed for demographic, disease, therapy and side effect data. The patients were divided into subgroups by pre- and post-implant prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and by different LDR brachytherapy techniques used, that is, preoperative planning technique (PPT) versus intraoperative real-time planning (IOR). Data were analysed by Kaplan–Meier method and appropriate testing was conducted for PSA biochemical recurrence (BCR) and for toxicities.
Results:
After median follow-up of 65·0 months, 94·0% of all patients were free from BCR. This endpoint showed no significant differences by patient age, initial PSA, PSA decrease over time, Gleason score and implanted total activity. Patients with IOR were free of BCR in 98·9% (180/182) versus 76·9% (40/52) with PPT. All patients with a PSA nadir of <0·1 ng/mL were free from BCR. Six patients (2·5%) reported an incontinence grade 1. Transient nocturia/urge and dysuria appeared in 54·7% and 22·6% of patients.
Conclusions:
Consistent with literature, LDR brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer appeared highly effective for freedom from BCR with mild side effects.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
*
Authors contributed equally
References
Bray, F, Ferlay, J, Soerjomataram, I et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68 (6): 394–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroder, FH, Hugosson, J, Roobol, MJ et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014; 384 (9959): 2027–2035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, C, Castro, E, Fizazi, K et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020; 31 (9): 1119–1134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimm, M, Wenz, F. Localized prostate cancer: radiotherapeutic concepts. Urologe 2016; 55 (3): 326–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenz, F, Martin, T, Böhmer, D et al. The German S3 guideline prostate cancer: aspects for the radiation oncologist. Strahlenther Onkol 2010; 186 (10): 531–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, G, Yao, X, Loblaw, DA et al. Low- dose rate brachytherapy for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7 (11–12): 463–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelefsky, MJ, Yamada, Y, Pei, X et al. Comparison of tumour control and toxicity outcomes of high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy and brachytherapy for patients with favorable risk prostate cancer. Urology 2011; 77 (4): 986–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potters, L, Morgenstern, C, Calugaru, E et al. 12-year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2005; 173 (5): 1562–1566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langley, SEM, Soares, R, Uribe, J et al. Long-term oncological outcomes and toxicity in 597 men aged ≤60 years at time of low-dose-rate brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018; 121 (1): 38–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pons-Llanas, O, Roldan-Ortega, S, Celada-Alvarez, F et al. Permanent seed implant brachytherapy in low-risk prostate cancer: preoperative planning with 145 Gy versus real-time intraoperative planning with 160 Gy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2018; 23 (4): 290–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chin, J, Rumble, RB, Kollmeier, M et al. Brachytherapy for patients with prostate cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario Joint Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (15): 1737–1745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salembier, C, Lavagnini, P, Nickers, P et al. Tumour and target volumes in permanent prostate brachytherapy: a supplement to the ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on prostate brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol 2007; 83 (1): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nag, S, Beyer, D, Friedland, J et al. American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 44 (4): 789–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polo, A, Salembier, C, Venselaar, J et al. PROBATE group of the GEC ESTRO. Review of intraoperative imaging and planning techniques in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2010; 94 (1): 12–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roach, M 3rd, Hanks, G, Thames, H Jr 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 Biol Phys 2006; 65 (4): 965–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kindts, I, Stellamans, K, Billiet, I et al. 125I brachytherapy in younger prostate cancer patients. Outcomes in low-and intermediate-risk disease. Strahlenther Onkol 2017; 193 (9): 707–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badakhshi, H, Graf, R, Budach, V et al. Permanent interstitial low-dose-rate brachytherapy for patients with low risk prostate cancer: an interim analysis of 312 cases. Strahlenther Onkol 2015; 191 (4): 303–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldner, G, Pötter, R, Battermann, JJ et al. Comparison of seed brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy (70 Gy or 74 Gy) in 919 low-risk prostate cancer patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2012; 188 (4): 305–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raben, A, Chen, H, Grebler, A et al. Prostate seed implantation using 3D-computer assisted intraoperative planning vs. a standard look-up nomogram: improved target conformality with reduction in urethral and rectal wall dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60 (5): 1631–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karius, A, Lotter, M, Kreppner, S et al. Permanent LDR prostate brachytherapy: comprehensive characterization of seed-dynamics within the prostate on a seed-only level. Brachytherapy 2022; 21 (5): 635–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martell, K, Meyer, T, Sia, M et al. Parameters predicting for prostate specific antigen response rates at one year post low-dose-rate intraoperative prostate brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachyther 2017; 9 (2): 99–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, WJ, Keyes, M, Spadinger, I et al. Population-based 10-year oncological outcomes after low- dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 2013; 119 (8): 1537–1546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emara, AM, Chadwick, E, Nobes, JP et al. Long-term toxicity and quality of life up to 10 years after low-dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109 (7): 994–1000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ash, D, Bottomley, D, Al-Qaisieh, B et al. A prospective analysis of long-term quality of life after permanent I-125 brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007; 84 (2): 135–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delouya, G, Bahary, P, Carrier, JF et al. Refining prostate seed brachytherapy: comparing high-, intermediate-, and low-activity seeds for I-125 permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2015; 14 (3): 329–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masucci, GL, Donath, D, Tétreault-Laflamme, A et al. Comparison between high and low source activity seeds for I-125 permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 78 (3): 781–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wust, P, von Borczyskowski, DW, Henkel, T et al. Clinical and physical determinants for toxicity of 125-I seed prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2004; 73 (1): 39–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chao, M, Joon, DL, Khoo, V et al. Combined low dose rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2019; 50 (1): 82–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, DJ, Barocas, DA, Zhao, Z et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after external beam radiation therapy and combined external beam with low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in men with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102 (1): 116–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, WJ, Tyldesley, S, Rodda, S et al. Androgen suppression combined with elective nodal and dose escalated radiation therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated external beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 98 (2): 275–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, J, Adiotomre, E, Bownes, P et al. Importance of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for targeting biopsy and salvage treatments after prostate cancer recurrence. J Contemp Brachyther 2018; 10 (6): 570–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feutren, T, Herrera, FG. Prostate irradiation with focal dose escalation to the intraprostatic dominant nodule: a systematic review. Prostate Int 2018; 6 (3): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maenhout, M, Peters, M, Moerland, MA et al. MRI guided focal HDR brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: toxicity, biochemical outcome and quality of life. Radiother Oncol 2018; 129 (3): 554–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelefsky, MJ, Pei, X, Chou, JF et al. Dose escalation for prostate cancer radiotherapy: predictors of long-term biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Eur Urol 2011; 60 (6): 1133–1139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed