A comparison of the impact of isotope ((125)I vs. (103)Pd) on toxicity and biochemical outcome after interstitial brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.
ABSTRACT To compare biochemical outcomes and morbidity associated with iodine-125 ((125)I) and palladium-103 ((103)Pd) brachytherapy as part of combined modality therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.
Between October 2002 and December 2008, 259 patients underwent prostate brachytherapy ((125)I prescription dose, 110Gy: n=199; (103)Pd prescription dose, 100Gy: n=60) followed by external beam radiotherapy (median dose, 50.4Gy). Eighty-seven patients also received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Toxicities were recorded with CTCAE v 3.0, International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function questionnaires.
Overall, acute Grade ≥2 genitourinary toxicity occurred in 21% and 30% of patients treated with (125)I and (103)Pd, respectively (p=0.16). There were no significant differences in IPSS change or urinary quality-of-life scores between the isotopes at 4, 6, or 12 months (p=0.20, 0.21, and 1.0, respectively). IPSS resolution occurred at a median of 11 and 6 months for (125)I and (103)Pd patients, respectively (p=0.03). On multivariate analysis, only the use of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was predictive of time to IPSS resolution (p=0.046). Late Grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 7% of (125)I patients and 6% of patients treated with (103)Pd. Of 129 potent patients at baseline, there was better erectile function in patients who received (103)Pd (p=0.02); however, the followup was shorter for these patients. The 5-year prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival for (125)I and (103)Pd patients was 95.2% and 98.2% (p=0.73), respectively.
There were no differences in acute or long-term genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity between (125)I and (103)Pd in combined modality therapy for prostate cancer. There may be less erectile toxicity with the use of (103)Pd; however, additional followup of these patients is needed. There was no significant difference in 5-year prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival between (103)Pd and (125)I.
- SourceAvailable from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Brachytherapy was developed to treat prostate cancer 50 years ago. Current advanced techniques using transrectal ultrasonography were established 25 years ago. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has enabled the prostate to be viewed with improved resolution with the use of modern ultrasound machines. Moreover, the development of software that can provide images captured in real time has improved treatment outcomes. Other new radiologic imaging technologies or a combination of magnetic resonance and TRUS could be applied to brachytherapy in the future. The therapeutic value of brachytherapy for early-stage prostate cancer is comparable to that of radical prostatectomy in long-term follow-up. Nevertheless, widespread application of brachytherapy cannot be achieved for several reasons. The treatment outcome of brachytherapy varies according to the skill of the operator and differences in patient selection. Currently, only three radioactive isotopes are available for use in low dose rate prostate brachytherapy: I-125, Pd-103, and Cs-131; therefore, more isotopes should be developed. High dose rate brachytherapy using Ir-192 combined with external beam radiation, which is needed to verify the long-term effects, has been widely applied in high-risk patient groups. Recently, tumor-selective therapy or focal therapy using brachytherapy, which is not possible by surgical extraction, has been developed to maintain the quality of life in selected cases. However, this new application for prostate cancer treatment should be performed cautiously because we do not know the oncological outcome, and it would be an interim treatment method. This technique might evolve into a hybrid of whole-gland treatment and focal therapy.Korean journal of urology 11/2012; 53(11):743-9.