PURPOSE: To compare the toxicity and biochemical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and (125)I transperineal permanent prostate seed implant ((125)I) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1998 and 2004, a total of 374 low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/ml, T1c-T2b, Gleason score of 6 or less, and no neoadjuvant hormones) were treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center (216 IMRT and 158 (125)I patients). Median follow-up was 43 months for IMRT and 48 months for (125)I. The IMRT prescription dose ranged from 74-78 Gy, and (125)I prescription was 145 Gy. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was recorded by using a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Freedom from biochemical failure was defined by using the Phoenix definition (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2.0 ng/ml). RESULTS: Patients treated by using IMRT were more likely to be older and have a higher baseline American Urological Association symptom index score, history of previous transurethral resection of the prostate, and larger prostate volumes. On multivariate analysis, IMRT was an independent predictor of lower acute and late Grade 2 or higher GU toxicity and late Grade 2 or higher GI toxicity. Three-year actuarial estimates of late Grade 2 or higher toxicity were 2.4% for GI and 3.5% for GU by using IMRT compared with 7.7% for GI and 19.2% for GU for (125)I, respectively. Four-year actuarial estimates of freedom from biochemical failure were 99.5% for IMRT and 93.5% for (125)I (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The IMRT and (125)I produce similar outcomes, although IMRT appears to have less acute and late toxicity.
PURPOSE: To compare the toxicity and biochemical outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and (125)I transperineal permanent prostate seed implant ((125)I) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1998 and 2004, a total of 374 low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/ml, T1c-T2b, Gleason score of 6 or less, and no neoadjuvant hormones) were treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center (216 IMRT and 158 (125)I patients). Median follow-up was 43 months for IMRT and 48 months for (125)I. The IMRT prescription dose ranged from 74-78 Gy, and (125)I prescription was 145 Gy. Acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was recorded by using a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Freedom from biochemical failure was defined by using the Phoenix definition (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2.0 ng/ml). RESULTS:Patients treated by using IMRT were more likely to be older and have a higher baseline American Urological Association symptom index score, history of previous transurethral resection of the prostate, and larger prostate volumes. On multivariate analysis, IMRT was an independent predictor of lower acute and late Grade 2 or higher GU toxicity and late Grade 2 or higher GI toxicity. Three-year actuarial estimates of late Grade 2 or higher toxicity were 2.4% for GI and 3.5% for GU by using IMRT compared with 7.7% for GI and 19.2% for GU for (125)I, respectively. Four-year actuarial estimates of freedom from biochemical failure were 99.5% for IMRT and 93.5% for (125)I (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The IMRT and (125)I produce similar outcomes, although IMRT appears to have less acute and late toxicity.
Authors: Eugene H Huang; Alan Pollack; Larry Levy; George Starkschall; Lei Dong; Isaac Rosen; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; Zvi Fuks; Margie Hunt; Yoshiya Yamada; Christine Marion; C Clifton Ling; Howard Amols; E S Venkatraman; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gunar K Zagars; George Starkschall; John A Antolak; J Jack Lee; Eugene Huang; Andrew C von Eschenbach; Deborah A Kuban; Isaac Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Kent E Wallner; Robert W Galbreath; Jonathan H Lief Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Niraj Pahlajani; Karen J Ruth; Mark K Buyyounouski; David Y T Chen; Eric M Horwitz; Gerald E Hanks; Robert A Price; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johnny Kao; Amanda Zucker; Jonathan Timmins; Shankar Taramangalam; Jeffrey Pettit; Aaron J Woodall; Edward Loizides; Andrew T Wong Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-08
Authors: Penny Fang; Rosemarie Mick; Curtiland Deville; Stefan Both; Justin E Bekelman; John P Christodouleas; Thomas J Guzzo; Zelig Tochner; Stephen M Hahn; Neha Vapiwala Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven P Register; Rajat J Kudchadker; Lawrence B Levy; David A Swanson; Thomas J Pugh; Teresa L Bruno; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Patricia Mae G Santos; Andrew R Barsky; Wei-Ting Hwang; Curtiland Deville; Xingmei Wang; Stefan Both; Justin E Bekelman; John P Christodouleas; Neha Vapiwala Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Agata Karklelyte; Konstantinas Povilas Valuckas; Romas Griskevicius; Ernestas Janulionis; Eduardas Aleknavicius Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2018-07-26
Authors: Caspian Oliai; Rachelle Lanciano; Brian Sprandio; Jun Yang; John Lamond; Steven Arrigo; Michael Good; Michael Mooreville; Bruce Garber; Luther W Brady Journal: J Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-09-12