BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postprostatectomy radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in adjuvant and salvage settings. The implantation technique and complications rate of gold markers in the prostate bed for high-precision RT were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing postprostatectomy RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse or high-risk disease were enrolled in the study. Under transrectal ultrasound guidance, three fine gold markers were implanted in the prostate bed and the technical difficulties of insertion were documented. Patients received our self-designed questionnaires concerning complications and pain. The influence of anticoagulants and coumarins on bleeding was analyzed, as was the effect of potential risk factors on pain. RESULTS: In 77 consecutive patients, failure of marker implantation or marker migration was seen in six cases. Rectal bleeding was reported by 10 patients and 1 had voiding complaints. No macroscopic hematuria persisting for more than 3 days was observed. Other complications included rectal discomfort (n = 2), nausea (n = 1), abdominal discomfort (n = 1), and pain requiring analgesics (n = 4). No major complications were reported. On a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS), the mean pain score was 3.7. No clinically significant risk factors for complications were identified. CONCLUSION: Transrectal implantation of gold markers in the prostate bed is feasible and safe. Alternatives like cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) should be considered, but the advantages of gold marker implantation for high-precision postprostatectomy RT would seem to outweigh the minor risks involved.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postprostatectomy radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in adjuvant and salvage settings. The implantation technique and complications rate of gold markers in the prostate bed for high-precision RT were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing postprostatectomy RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse or high-risk disease were enrolled in the study. Under transrectal ultrasound guidance, three fine gold markers were implanted in the prostate bed and the technical difficulties of insertion were documented. Patients received our self-designed questionnaires concerning complications and pain. The influence of anticoagulants and coumarins on bleeding was analyzed, as was the effect of potential risk factors on pain. RESULTS: In 77 consecutive patients, failure of marker implantation or marker migration was seen in six cases. Rectal bleeding was reported by 10 patients and 1 had voiding complaints. No macroscopic hematuria persisting for more than 3 days was observed. Other complications included rectal discomfort (n = 2), nausea (n = 1), abdominal discomfort (n = 1), and pain requiring analgesics (n = 4). No major complications were reported. On a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS), the mean pain score was 3.7. No clinically significant risk factors for complications were identified. CONCLUSION: Transrectal implantation of gold markers in the prostate bed is feasible and safe. Alternatives like cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) should be considered, but the advantages of gold marker implantation for high-precision postprostatectomy RT would seem to outweigh the minor risks involved.
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Katja M Langen; Twyla R Willoughby; Thomas H Wagner; Omar A Zeidan; Sanford L Meeks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Jaroslav Siluschek; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Cengiz Demirel; Branka Asadpour; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ruben G H M Cremers; Emile N J T van Lin; Wieneke L J Gerrits; Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Henk Vergunst; Adriaan J Smans; Johannes H A M Kaanders; J Alfred Witjes Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: J Wu; T Haycocks; H Alasti; G Ottewell; N Middlemiss; M Abdolell; P Warde; A Toi; C Catton Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Homan Dehnad; Aart J Nederveen; Uulke A van der Heide; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Pieter Hofman; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Pirus Ghadjar; Nicole Gwerder; Axel Madlung; Frank Behrensmeier; George N Thalmann; Roberto Mini; Daniel M Aebersold Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Florent Vilotte; Mickael Antoine; Maxime Bobin; Igor Latorzeff; Stéphane Supiot; Pierre Richaud; Laurence Thomas; Nicolas Leduc; Stephane Guérif; Jone Iriondo-Alberdi; Renaud de Crevoisier; Paul Sargos Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 6.244