A comparison of the impact of isotope (I-125 vs. Pd-103) 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: 2.76).
12/2011; 11(4):271-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2011.11.002
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.
Available from: William Tristram Arscott
- "Obstructive voiding symptoms are the primary urinary morbidity following brachytherapy. Treatment-related factors such as physician experience [31,32], isotope selection [33,34] and/or the number of needle applicators utilized [35,36] may affect the incidence and severity of obstructive voiding symptoms. Acute urinary retention (AUR) is common and may occur in 5-20% of patients . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Obstructive voiding symptoms (OVS) are common following prostate cancer treatment with radiation therapy. The risk of urinary retention (UR) following hypofractionated radiotherapy has yet to be fully elucidated. This study sought to evaluate OVS and UR requiring catheterization following SBRT for prostate cancer.
Patients treated with SBRT for localized prostate cancer from February 2008 to July 2011 at Georgetown University were included in this study. Treatment was delivered using the CyberKnife® with doses of 35 Gy-36.25 Gy in 5 fractions. UR was prospectively scored using the CTCAE v.3. Patient-reported OVS were assessed using the IPSS-obstructive subdomain at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months. Associated bother was evaluated via the EPIC-26.
269 patients at a median age of 69 years received SBRT with a median follow-up of 3 years. The mean prostate volume was 39 cc. Prior to treatment, 50.6% of patients reported moderate to severe lower urinary track symptoms per the IPSS and 6.7% felt that weak urine stream and/or incomplete emptying were a moderate to big problem. The 2-year actuarial incidence rates of acute and late UR ≥ grade 2 were 39.5% and 41.4%. Alpha-antagonist utilization rose at one month (58%) and 18 months (48%) post-treatment. However, Grade 3 UR was low with only 4 men (1.5%) requiring catheterization and/or TURP. A mean baseline IPSS-obstructive score of 3.6 significantly increased to 5.0 at 1 month (p < 0.0001); however, it returned to baseline in 92.6% within a median time of 3 months. Late increases in OVS were common, but transient. Only 7.1% of patients felt that weak urine stream and/or incomplete emptying was a moderate to big problem at two years post-SBRT (p = 0.6854).
SBRT treatment caused an acute increase in OVS which peaked within the first month post-treatment, though acute UR requiring catheterization was rare. OVS returned to baseline in > 90% of patients within a median time of three months. Transient Late increases in OVS were common. However, less than 10% of patients felt that OVS were a moderate to big problem at two years post-SBRT.
Available from: Jesse N Aronowitz
- "Use of short half-life radionuclides (103Pd and 131Cs at 17 and 9.7 days, respectively) reduces concern regarding concurrent EBRT dosing since > 90% of the brachytherapy dose is delivered after 8 weeks. However, the optimal role of each radionuclide has not been determined, nor has this question been asked in a randomized, multi-institutional, prospective study [42, 43]. "
[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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To investigate the utility of endorectal coil magenetic resonance imaging (eMRI) in predicting biochemical relapse in prostate cancer patients treated with combination brachytherapy and external-beam radiotherapy.
Between 2000 and 2008, 279 men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer underwent eMRI of their prostate before receiving brachytherapy and supplemental intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Endorectal coil MRI was performed before treatment and retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists experienced in genitourinary MRI. Image-based variables, including tumor diameter, location, number of sextants involved, and the presence of extracapsular extension (ECE), were incorporated with other established clinical variables to predict biochemical control outcomes. The median follow-up was 49 months (range, 1-13 years).
The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival for the cohort was 92%. Clinical findings predicting recurrence on univariate analysis included Gleason score (hazard ratio [HR] 3.6, p = 0.001), PSA (HR 1.04, p = 0.005), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group (HR 4.1, p = 0.002). Clinical T stage and the use of androgen deprivation therapy were not correlated with biochemical failure. Imaging findings on univariate analysis associated with relapse included ECE on MRI (HR 3.79, p = 0.003), tumor size (HR 2.58, p = 0.04), and T stage (HR 1.71, p = 0.004). On multivariate analysis incorporating both clinical and imaging findings, only ECE on MRI and Gleason score were independent predictors of recurrence.
Pretreatment eMRI findings predict for biochemical recurrence in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with combination brachytherapy and external-beam radiotherapy. Gleason score and the presence of ECE on MRI were the only significant predictors of biochemical relapse in this group of patients.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.