Barry W Goy1, Margaret S Soper2, Tangel Chang3, Jeff M Slezak4, Harry A Cosmatos2, Michael Tome2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: barry.w.goy@kp.org. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA. 4. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente, Pasadena, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare 10-year treatment outcomes of brachytherapy vs. external beam radiation therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2004 and 2007, 93 IRPC patients underwent brachytherapy using iodine-125 to a dose of 145 Gy without supplemental external radiation. A retrospective comparison was performed to a contemporary cohort of 597 patients treated with external beam radiation therapy to a median dose of 75.3 Gy using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: Median followup was 7.8 years. With brachytherapy, 51.6% had Gleason score 7 vs. 72.0% for external radiation (p < 0.001). Median initial prostate-specific antigen was 8.3 for brachytherapy vs. 9.4 for external radiation (p = 0.01). Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given in 59.5% of external radiation vs. 10.8% of brachytherapy patients (p < 0.001). The 10-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) for brachytherapy was 81.7% vs. 54.5% for external radiation (p = 0.002). Unfavorable intermediate-risk patients experienced borderline significant improved FFBF with brachytherapy (p = 0.08). The 10-year freedom from salvage therapy for brachytherapy was 93.2% vs. 72.2% for external radiation (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, or overall survival after adjusting for age. Multivariate analysis with propensity score matching showed that brachytherapy remained an independent predictor for improved FFBF (p = 0.007). Grade 1 and 2 late rectal complication rate was 6.5% for brachytherapy vs. 15.2% for external radiation (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy using iodine-125 without supplemental external radiation is a reasonable treatment option for selected IRPC patients. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: To compare 10-year treatment outcomes of brachytherapy vs. external beam radiation therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2004 and 2007, 93 IRPC patients underwent brachytherapy using iodine-125 to a dose of 145 Gy without supplemental external radiation. A retrospective comparison was performed to a contemporary cohort of 597 patients treated with external beam radiation therapy to a median dose of 75.3 Gy using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: Median followup was 7.8 years. With brachytherapy, 51.6% had Gleason score 7 vs. 72.0% for external radiation (p < 0.001). Median initial prostate-specific antigen was 8.3 for brachytherapy vs. 9.4 for external radiation (p = 0.01). Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given in 59.5% of external radiation vs. 10.8% of brachytherapy patients (p < 0.001). The 10-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) for brachytherapy was 81.7% vs. 54.5% for external radiation (p = 0.002). Unfavorable intermediate-risk patients experienced borderline significant improved FFBF with brachytherapy (p = 0.08). The 10-year freedom from salvage therapy for brachytherapy was 93.2% vs. 72.2% for external radiation (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in distant metastases-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, or overall survival after adjusting for age. Multivariate analysis with propensity score matching showed that brachytherapy remained an independent predictor for improved FFBF (p = 0.007). Grade 1 and 2 late rectal complication rate was 6.5% for brachytherapy vs. 15.2% for external radiation (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy using iodine-125 without supplemental external radiation is a reasonable treatment option for selected IRPC patients. Copyright Â