Article

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.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Brachytherapy (Impact Factor: 1.22). 12/2011; 11(4):271-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2011.11.002
Source: PubMed

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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
101 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Permanent prostate brachytherapy has been practiced for more than a century. This review examines the influence of earlier procedures on the modern transperineal ultrasound-directed technique. A literature review was conducted to examine the origin of current clinical practice. The dimensions of the modern brachytherapy seed, the prescription dose, and implant/teletherapy sequencing are vestigial features, which may be suboptimal in the current era of low-energy photon-emitting radionuclides and computerized dose calculations. Although the modern transperineal permanent prostate implant procedure has proven to be safe and effective, it should undergo continuous re-evaluation and evolution to ensure that its potential is maximized.
    Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy 06/2013; 5(2):89-92.
  • Source
    [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.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare tumour control and toxicity outcomes with the use of high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) alone or brachytherapy combined with IMRT (combo-RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Between 1997 and 2010, 870 consecutive patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated at our institution with either 86.4 Gy of IMRT alone (n = 470) or combo-RT consisting of brachytherapy combined with 50.4 Gy of IMRT (n = 400). Brachytherapy consisted of low-dose-rate permanent interstitial implantation in 260 patients and high-dose-rate temporary implantation in 140 patients. The median (range) follow-up for the entire cohort was 5.3 (1-14) years. For IMRT alone vs combo-RT, 7-year actuarial prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS) rates were 81.4 vs 92.0% (P < 0.001), and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates were 93.0 vs 97.2% (P = 0.04), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that combo-RT was associated with better PSA-RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.66], P < 0.001), and better DMFS (HR, 0.41 [0.18-0.92], P = 0.03). A higher incidence of acute genitourinary (GU) grade 2 (35.8 vs 18.9%; P < 0.01) and acute GU grade 3 (2.3 vs 0.4%; P = 0.03) toxicities occurred in the combo-RT group than in the IMRT-alone group. Most acute toxicity resolved. Late toxicity outcomes were similar between the treatment groups. The 7-year actuarial late toxicity rates for grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were 4.6 vs 4.1% (P = 0.89), for grade 3 GI toxicity 0.4 vs 1.4% (P = 0.36), for grade 2 GU toxicity 19.4 vs 21.2% (P = 0.14), and grade 3 GU toxicity 3.1 vs 1.4% (P = 0.74) for the IMRT vs the combo-RT group, respectively. Enhanced dose escalation using combo-RT was associated with superior PSA-RFS and DMFS outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer compared with high-dose IMRT alone at a dose of 86.4 Gy. While acute GU toxicities were more prevalent in the combo-RT group, the incidence of late GI and GU toxicities was similar between the treatment groups.
    BJU International 10/2013; · 3.05 Impact Factor