Kliton Jorgo1, Péter Ágoston2, Tibor Major2, Zoltán Takácsi-Nagy2, Csaba Polgár2. 1. Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Ráth György u. 7-9, 1122, Budapest, Hungary. jorgokliton@gmail.com. 2. Centre of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, Ráth György u. 7-9, 1122, Budapest, Hungary.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present the feasibility and complications of transperineal fiducial marker implantation in prostate cancer patients undergoing image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between November 2011 and April 2016, three radiopaque, gold-plated markers were transperineally implanted into the prostate of 300 patients under transrectal ultrasound guidance and with local anaesthesia. A week after the procedure patients filled in a questionnaire regarding pain, dysuria, urinary frequency, nocturia, rectal bleeding, hematuria, hematospermia or fever symptoms caused by the implantation. Pain was scored on a 1-10 scale, where score 1 meant very weak and score 10 meant unbearable pain. The implanted gold markers were used for daily verification and online correction of patients' setup during IGRT. RESULTS: Based on the questionnaires no patient experienced fever, infection, dysuria or rectal bleeding after implantation. Among the 300 patients, 12 (4%) had hematospermia, 43 (14%) hematuria, which lasted for an average of 3.4 and 1.8 days, respectively. The average pain score was 4.6 (range 0-9). Of 300 patients 87 (29%) felt any pain after the intervention, which took an average of 1.5 days. None of the patients needed analgesics after implantation. Overall, 105 patients (35%) reported less, 80 patients (27%) more, and 94 patients (31%) equal amount of pain during marker implantation compared to biopsy. The 21 patients who had a biopsy performed under general anesthesia did not answer this question. CONCLUSION: Transperineal gold marker implantation under local anesthesia was well tolerated. Complications were limited; rate and frequency of perioperative pain was comparable to the pain caused by biopsy. The method can be performed safely in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To present the feasibility and complications of transperineal fiducial marker implantation in prostate cancerpatients undergoing image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between November 2011 and April 2016, three radiopaque, gold-plated markers were transperineally implanted into the prostate of 300 patients under transrectal ultrasound guidance and with local anaesthesia. A week after the procedure patients filled in a questionnaire regarding pain, dysuria, urinary frequency, nocturia, rectal bleeding, hematuria, hematospermia or fever symptoms caused by the implantation. Pain was scored on a 1-10 scale, where score 1 meant very weak and score 10 meant unbearable pain. The implanted gold markers were used for daily verification and online correction of patients' setup during IGRT. RESULTS: Based on the questionnaires no patient experienced fever, infection, dysuria or rectal bleeding after implantation. Among the 300 patients, 12 (4%) had hematospermia, 43 (14%) hematuria, which lasted for an average of 3.4 and 1.8 days, respectively. The average pain score was 4.6 (range 0-9). Of 300 patients 87 (29%) felt any pain after the intervention, which took an average of 1.5 days. None of the patients needed analgesics after implantation. Overall, 105 patients (35%) reported less, 80 patients (27%) more, and 94 patients (31%) equal amount of pain during marker implantation compared to biopsy. The 21 patients who had a biopsy performed under general anesthesia did not answer this question. CONCLUSION: Transperineal gold marker implantation under local anesthesia was well tolerated. Complications were limited; rate and frequency of perioperative pain was comparable to the pain caused by biopsy. The method can be performed safely in clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Fiducial markers; Image-guided radiotherapy; Local anesthesia; Safety
Authors: D Steensels; K Slabbaert; L De Wever; P Vermeersch; H Van Poppel; J Verhaegen Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; George Starkschall; Eugene H Huang; M Rex Cheung; Andrew K Lee; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 7.038
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: 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: S Gill; J Li; J Thomas; M Bressel; K Thursky; C Styles; K H Tai; G M Duchesne; F Foroudi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J F Langenhuijsen; R Donker; G M McColl; L A L M Kiemeney; J A Witjes; E N J T van Lin Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-04-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Ann M Henry; Cathy Wilkinson; James P Wylie; John P Logue; Pat Price; Vincent S Khoo Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2004-10 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