PURPOSE: High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy used as the only treatment (monotherapy) for early prostate cancer is consistent with current concepts in prostate radiobiology, and the dose is reliably delivered in a prospectively defined anatomic distribution that meets all the requirements for safe and effective therapy. We report the disease control and toxicity of HDR monotherapy from California Endocurietherapy (CET) and William Beaumont Hospital (WBH) in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: There were 298 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with HDR monotherapy between 1996 and 2005. Two biologically equivalent hypofractionation protocols were used. At CET the dose was 42 Gy in six fractions (two implantations 1 week apart) delivered to a computed tomography-defined planning treatment volume. At WBH the dose was 38 Gy in four fractions (one implantation) based on intraoperative transrectal ultrasound real-time treatment planning. The bladder, urethral, and rectal dose constraints were similar. Toxicity was scored with the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 5.2 years. The median age of the patients was 63 years, and the median value of the pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 6.0 ng/mL. The 8-year results were 99% local control, 97% biochemical control (nadir +2), 99% distant metastasis-free survival, 99% cause-specific survival, and 95% overall survival. Toxicity was scored per event, meaning that an individual patient with more than one symptom was represented repeatedly in the morbidity data table. Genitourinary toxicity consisted of 10% transient Grade 2 urinary frequency or urgency and 3% Grade 3 episode of urinary retention. Gastrointestinal toxicity was <1%. CONCLUSIONS: High disease control rates and low morbidity demonstrate that HDR monotherapy is safe and effective for patients with localized prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy used as the only treatment (monotherapy) for early prostate cancer is consistent with current concepts in prostate radiobiology, and the dose is reliably delivered in a prospectively defined anatomic distribution that meets all the requirements for safe and effective therapy. We report the disease control and toxicity of HDR monotherapy from California Endocurietherapy (CET) and William Beaumont Hospital (WBH) in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancerpatients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: There were 298 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with HDR monotherapy between 1996 and 2005. Two biologically equivalent hypofractionation protocols were used. At CET the dose was 42 Gy in six fractions (two implantations 1 week apart) delivered to a computed tomography-defined planning treatment volume. At WBH the dose was 38 Gy in four fractions (one implantation) based on intraoperative transrectal ultrasound real-time treatment planning. The bladder, urethral, and rectal dose constraints were similar. Toxicity was scored with the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 5.2 years. The median age of the patients was 63 years, and the median value of the pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 6.0 ng/mL. The 8-year results were 99% local control, 97% biochemical control (nadir +2), 99% distant metastasis-free survival, 99% cause-specific survival, and 95% overall survival. Toxicity was scored per event, meaning that an individual patient with more than one symptom was represented repeatedly in the morbidity data table. Genitourinary toxicity consisted of 10% transient Grade 2 urinary frequency or urgency and 3% Grade 3 episode of urinary retention. Gastrointestinal toxicity was <1%. CONCLUSIONS: High disease control rates and low morbidity demonstrate that HDR monotherapy is safe and effective for patients with localized prostate cancer.
Authors: Amar U Kishan; Sang J Park; Christopher R King; Kristofer Roberts; Patrick A Kupelian; Michael L Steinberg; Mitchell Kamrava Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 14.432
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
Authors: M E Schutzer; P F Orio; M C Biagioli; D A Asher; H Lomas; D Moghanaki Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Frank Fischbach; Peter Hass; Daniel Schindele; Philipp Genseke; Lisa Geisendorf; Christian Stehning; Martin Schostak; Thomas Brunner; Maciej Pech; Katharina Fischbach Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 5.315