Evaluation of rectal bleeding factors associated with prostate brachytherapy.

Department of Radiology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Japanese journal of radiology (Impact Factor: 0.74). 12/2009; 27(10):444-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-009-0369-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To analyze rectal bleeding prognostic factors associated with prostate brachytherapy (PB) or in combination with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and to examine dosimetric indications associated with rectal bleeding.
The study included 296 patients followed up for >36 months (median, 48 months). PB was performed alone in 252 patients and in combination with EBRT in 44 patients. PB combined with EBRT is indicated for patients with a Gleason score >6. The prescribed dose was 144 Gy for monotherapy and 110 Gy for PB + EBRT (44-46 Gy).
Although 9.1% who received monotherapy had 2.3% grade 2 rectal bleeding, 36.3% who received combined therapy had 15.9% grade 2 rectal bleeding. Combined therapy was associated with higher incidence of rectal bleeding (P = 0.0049) and higher percentage of grade 2 bleeding (P = 0.0005). Multivariate analysis revealed that R-150 was the only significant factor for rectal bleeding, and modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade in monotherapy and biologically equivalent dose (BED) were significant for combined therapy. Moreover, grade 2 rectal bleeding increased significantly at D90 > 130 Gy.
Although R-150 was the significant prognostic factor for rectal bleeding and modified RTOG rectal toxicity grade, BED was the significant prognostic factor for modified RTOG rectal toxicity grade.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background To compare the periodical incidence rates of genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients who underwent prostate low-dose-rate brachytherapy between the monotherapy group (seed implantation alone) and the boost group (in combination with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT)). Methods A total of 218 patients with a median follow-up of 42.5 months were enrolled. The patients were divided into 2 groups by treatment modality, namely, the monotherapy group (155 patients) and the boost group (63 patients). The periodical incidence rates of GU and GI toxicity were separately evaluated and compared between the monotherapy group and the boost group using the National Cancer Institute - Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. To elucidate an independent factor among clinical and postdosimetric parameters to predict grade 2 or higher GU and GI toxicity in the acute and late phases, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out. Results Of all patients, 78.0% showed acute GU toxicity, and 7.8% showed acute GI toxicity, while 63.8% showed late GU toxicity, and 21.1% showed late GI toxicity. The incidence rates of late GU and GI toxicity were significantly higher in the boost group. Multivariate analysis showed that the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before seed implantation was a significant parameter to predict acute GU toxicity, while there were no significant predictive parameters for acute GI toxicity. On the other hand, combination with EBRT was a significant predictive parameter for late GU toxicity, and rectal volume (mL) receiving 100% of the prescribed dose (R100) was a significant predictive parameter for late GI toxicity. Conclusions The boost group showed higher incidence rates of both GU and GI toxicity. Higher IPSS before seed implantation, combination with EBRT and a higher R100 were significant predictors for acute GU, late GU and late GI toxicity.
    Radiation Oncology 01/2013; 8(1):25. DOI:10.1186/1748-717X-8-25 · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities in prostate cancer patients treated with three different high-dose radiation techniques. A total of 1,903 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with definitive RT at William Beaumont Hospital from 1992 to 2006: 22% with brachytherapy alone (BT), 55% with image-guided external beam (EB-IGRT), and 23% external beam with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (EBRT+HDR). Median dose with BT was 120 Gy for LDR and 38 Gy for HDR (9.5 Gy × 4). Median dose with EB-IGRT was 75.6 Gy (PTV) to prostate with or without seminal vesicles. For EBRT+HDR, the pelvis was treated to 46 Gy with an additional 19 Gy (9.5 Gy × 2) delivered via HDR. GI and GU toxicity was evaluated utilizing the NCI-CTC criteria (v.3.0). Median follow-up was 4.8 years. The incidences of any acute ≥ Grade 2 GI or GU toxicities were 35%, 49%, and 55% for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR (p < 0.001). Any late GU toxicities ≥ Grade 2 were present in 22%, 21%, and 28% for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR (p = 0.01), respectively. Patients receiving EBRT+HDR had a higher incidence of urethral stricture and retention, whereas dysuria was most common in patients receiving BT. Any Grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicities were 2%, 20%, and 9% for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR (p < 0.001). Differences were most pronounced for rectal bleeding, with 3-year rates of 0.9%, 20%, and 6% (p < 0.001) for BT, EB-IGRT, and EBRT+HDR respectively. Each of the three modern high-dose radiation techniques for localized prostate cancer offers a different toxicity profile. These data can help patients and physicians to make informed decisions regarding radiotherapy for prostate andenocarcinoma.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 12/2010; 82(1):204-12. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.009 · 4.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer. To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews. Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently. We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life. Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008871.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor