Literature DB >> 14630265

125I versus 103Pd for low-risk prostate cancer: preliminary PSA outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial.

Kent Wallner1, Gregory Merrick, Lawrence True, Steven Sutlief, William Cavanagh, Wayne Butler.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare prostate cancer control rates in patients who received (125)I vs. (103)Pd.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of a planned total of 600 patients with 1997 American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical Stage T1c-T2a prostate carcinoma (Gleason score 5-6, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 4-10 ng/mL), 126 were randomized to implantation with (125)I (144 Gy) vs. (103)Pd (125 Gy). The prostate biopsies were reviewed for Gleason score by one of us (L.T.). A single manufacturer of (125)I sources (Model 6711, Amersham, Chicago, IL) and (103)Pd sources (Theraseed, Theragenics, Buford, Georgia) was used. Isotope implantation was performed with standard techniques, using a modified peripheral loading pattern. Of a total of 126 patients randomized, 11 were excluded, leaving 115 randomized patients for this analysis. Twenty patients received a short course of preimplant hormonal therapy, none of whom continued hormonal therapy after their implant procedure. Postimplant CT was obtained 2-4 hours after implantation. The dosimetric parameters analyzed included the percentage of the postimplant prostate or rectal volume covered by the prescription dose (V(100)) and the dose that covered 90% of the postimplant prostate volume (D(90)). Freedom from biochemical failure was defined as a serum PSA level < or =0.5 ng/mL at last follow-up. Patients were censored at last follow-up if their serum PSA level was still decreasing. Patients whose serum PSA had reached a nadir at a value >0.5 ng/mL were scored as having failure at the time at which their PSA had reached a nadir. The follow-up period for patients without failure ranged from 2.0 to 4.9 years (median 2.9). Freedom-from-failure curves were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between groups were determined by the log-rank method.
RESULTS: The actuarial biochemical freedom-from-failure rate at 3 years was 89% for (125)I patients vs. 91% for (103)Pd patients (p = 0.76). The 3-year biochemical freedom-from-failure rate for patients with a D(90) <100% of the prescription dose was 82% vs. 97% for patients with a D(90) > or =100% of the prescription dose (p = 0.01). Similarly, the 3-year biochemical freedom-from-failure rate for patients with a V(100) <90% of the prescription dose was 87% vs. 97% for patients with a V(100) > or =90% of the prescription dose (p = 0.01). The effect of the dosimetric parameters on biochemical control was most pronounced for (125)I, but also apparent for (103)Pd.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year actuarial biochemical control rates for low early-stage prostate cancer are similar after (125)I and (103)Pd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14630265     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(03)01448-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  13 in total

1.  Permanent prostate brachytherapy: the significance of postimplant dosimetry.

Authors:  W Robert Lee
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2004

2.  Evidence-based guideline recommendations on low-dose rate brachytherapy in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  George Rodrigues; Xiaomei Yao; D Andrew Loblaw; Michael Brundage; Joseph L Chin
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Brian J Davis; Paul L Nguyen; Timothy N Showalter; Peter J Hoskin; Yasuo Yoshioka; Gerard C Morton; Eric M Horwitz
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 4.  Low-dose rate brachytherapy for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  George Rodrigues; Xiaomei Yao; D Andrew Loblaw; Michael Brundage; Joseph L Chin
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Overview of randomized controlled treatment trials for clinically localized prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance and the United States preventative task force report on screening?

Authors:  Mack Roach; Kimberly Thomas
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

6.  Is it necessary to perform week three dosimetric analysis in low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer when day 0 dosimetry is done? A quality assurance assessment.

Authors:  T Shaikh; N G Zaorsky; K Ruth; D Y Chen; R E Greenberg; J Li; K Crawford; E M Horwitz
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Georgios Koukourakis; Nikolaos Kelekis; Vassilios Armonis; Vassilios Kouloulias
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2009-09-01

8.  Management of Localized Prostate Cancer by Focal Transurethral Resection of Prostate Cancer: An Application of Radical TUR-PCa to Focal Therapy.

Authors:  Masaru Morita; Takeshi Matsuura
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2012-05-22

9.  Bioevaluation of (125) I Ocu-Prosta seeds for application in prostate cancer brachytherapy.

Authors:  Archana Mukherjee; Haladhar Dev Sarma; Sanjay Saxena; Yogendra Kumar; Pradip Chaudhari; Jayant Sastri Goda; Pranjal Adurkar; Ashutosh Dash; Grace Samuel
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Time to failure after definitive therapy for prostate cancer: implications for importance of aggressive local treatment.

Authors:  Al V Taira; Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Robert W Galbreath; Ryan Fiano; Kent E Wallner; Edward Adamovich
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2013-12-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.