Matthias Moll1, Christopher Paschen2, Alexandru Zaharie2, Florian Berndl3, Gregor Goldner2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. matthias.moll@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of our study was comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and I‑125 seeds brachytherapy in terms of biochemical control and development of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary side effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 477 low-risk prostate cancer patients treated between 2000 and 2019 at our department using either I‑125 seeds brachytherapy or EBRT with a dose of 74 or 78 Gy were reviewed for our analysis. 213 patients were treated with EBRT and 264 with seeds. RESULTS: Patients were followed up yearly with a median follow-up of 70 (3-192) months. The biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates after 5 years were 95% for both EBRT and seeds, and after 10 years 87% for EBRT and 94% for seeds using the Phoenix criteria, although no significant difference was observed. Concerning gastrointestinal side effects, EBRT showed significantly higher rates of RTOG grade ≥2 toxicity compared to seeds, but at no point in follow-up more than 15% of all patients. On the other hand, genitourinary side effects were significantly more prevalent in patients treated with seeds, with 40% RTOG grade ≥2 toxicity 12 months after treatment. Nevertheless, both types of side effects decreased over time. CONCLUSION: Both EBRT and seeds provide excellent biochemical control with bNED rates after 10 years of about 90%. In terms of side effects, patients treated with seeds show higher grades of genitourinary side effects, while patients treated with EBRT show higher grades of gastrointestinal side effects.
PURPOSE: The goal of our study was comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and I‑125 seeds brachytherapy in terms of biochemical control and development of late gastrointestinal and genitourinary side effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 477 low-risk prostate cancerpatients treated between 2000 and 2019 at our department using either I‑125 seeds brachytherapy or EBRT with a dose of 74 or 78 Gy were reviewed for our analysis. 213 patients were treated with EBRT and 264 with seeds. RESULTS:Patients were followed up yearly with a median follow-up of 70 (3-192) months. The biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates after 5 years were 95% for both EBRT and seeds, and after 10 years 87% for EBRT and 94% for seeds using the Phoenix criteria, although no significant difference was observed. Concerning gastrointestinal side effects, EBRT showed significantly higher rates of RTOG grade ≥2 toxicity compared to seeds, but at no point in follow-up more than 15% of all patients. On the other hand, genitourinary side effects were significantly more prevalent in patients treated with seeds, with 40% RTOG grade ≥2 toxicity 12 months after treatment. Nevertheless, both types of side effects decreased over time. CONCLUSION: Both EBRT and seeds provide excellent biochemical control with bNED rates after 10 years of about 90%. In terms of side effects, patients treated with seeds show higher grades of genitourinary side effects, while patients treated with EBRT show higher grades of gastrointestinal side effects.
Authors: Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-15 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: Thomas N Eade; Eric M Horwitz; Karen Ruth; Mark K Buyyounouski; David J D'Ambrosio; Steven J Feigenberg; David Y T Chen; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martin Buschmann; Abdul Wahab M Sharfo; Joan Penninkhof; Yvette Seppenwoolde; Gregor Goldner; Dietmar Georg; Sebastiaan Breedveld; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jose Luis Guinot; Juan Casanova; Victor Gonzalez-Perez; Miguel Angel Santos; Victor De Los Dolores; Maria Isabel Tortajada; Carmen Guardino; Vicente Crispin; Jose Rubio-Briones; Leoncio Arribas Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2022-05-12
Authors: Matthias Moll; Andreas Renner; Christian Kirisits; Christopher Paschen; Alexandru Zaharie; Gregor Goldner Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 3.621