Literature DB >> 9457836

A survey of current clinical practice of permanent prostate brachytherapy in the United States.

B R Prestidge1, J J Prete, T A Buchholz, J L Friedland, R G Stock, P D Grimm, W S Bice.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To help establish standards of care for transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) by obtaining data regarding current clinical practice among the most experienced TIPPB brachytherapists in the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 70 brachytherapists who performed the greatest number of TIPPB cases in 1995 in the U.S. were surveyed. Each received a comprehensive four page questionnaire that included sections on training and experience, patient and isotope selection criteria, manpower, technique, and follow-up. Thirty-five (50%) surveys were ultimately returned after three mailings and follow-up phone calls. The cumulative experience of the 35 respondents represented approximately 45% of the total TIPPB volume in the U.S. for 1995. Respondents included 29 from the private sector and six from academic programs.
RESULTS: The median physician experience with TIPPB was reported as 4.9 years. Each performed an average of 73 TIPPB procedures in 1995 (range 40-300). This represented an increase in volume for most (74%) of the respondents. Sixty-three percent of the respondents attended a formal training course, 54% had TIPPB-specific residency training, and 31% had been proctored (16 had received two or more types of training experience). The most commonly reported selection criteria for implant alone was on Gleason score < or = 7, PSA < 15, < or = Stage T2a, and gland size < or = 60 cc, although no clear consensus was found. Fifty-four percent considered a history of TURP to be a relative contraindication, while 34% considered TURP to have no impact on patient selection. Eighty-six percent of respondents combine brachytherapy with external beam radiation in an average of 32% of their patients. Boosts were given with both 125I prescribed to 120 Gy (75%) or 103Pd to 90 Gy (50%). Sixty percent reported using a Mick applicator, 46% prefer using preloaded needles, and (11%) use both techniques. Real-time imaging was usually performed with ultrasound (94%); most included fluoroscopy (60%). Definitions of PSA control varied widely.
CONCLUSIONS: TIPPB clinical practice in the U.S. demonstrates similarities in technique, but differences in patient selection and definitions of biochemical control. It is, therefore, incumbent on those beginning TIPPB programs to carefully review the specific practice details of those institutions with a broad experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9457836     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00715-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  12 in total

1.  Prostate implant reconstruction from C-arm images with motion-compensated tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Ehsan Dehghan; Mehdi Moradi; Xu Wen; Danny French; Julio Lobo; W James Morris; Septimiu E Salcudean; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  REDMAPS: reduced-dimensionality matching for prostate brachytherapy seed reconstruction.

Authors:  Junghoon Lee; Christian Labat; Ameet K Jain; Danny Y Song; Everette Clif Burdette; Gabor Fichtinger; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 3.  The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

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

4.  [High-dose rate brachytherapy for high-risk prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Schenck; K Krause; R Schwandtner; I Haase; D Fluehs; J Friedrich; T Jaeger; C Boergermann; H Ruebben; M Stuschke
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Modern brachytherapy for localized prostate cancers: the northwest hospital (Seattle) experience.

Authors:  L J Korb; M K Brawer
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2001

6.  Intra-operative 3D guidance and edema detection in prostate brachytherapy using a non-isocentric C-arm.

Authors:  A Jain; A Deguet; I Iordachita; G Chintalapani; S Vikal; J Blevins; Y Le; E Armour; C Burdette; D Song; G Fichtinger
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2010-08-14       Impact factor: 8.545

7.  Intraoperative 3D reconstruction of prostate brachytherapy implants with automatic pose correction.

Authors:  Junghoon Lee; Nathanael Kuo; Anton Deguet; Ehsan Dehghan; Danny Y Song; Everette C Burdette; Jerry L Prince
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Prostate brachytherapy seed reconstruction with Gaussian blurring and optimal coverage cost.

Authors:  Junghoon Lee; Xiaofeng Liu; Ameet K Jain; Danny Y Song; Everette C Burdette; Jerry L Prince; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 10.048

9.  A comparison of preplan MRI and preplan CT-based prostate volume with intraoperative ultrasound-based prostate volume in real-time permanent brachytherapy.

Authors:  Hyeli Park; Ja Young Kim; Bo Mi Lee; Sei Kyung Chang; Seung Young Ko; Sung Jun Kim; Dong Soo Park; Hyun Soo Shin
Journal:  Radiat Oncol J       Date:  2011-09-30

10.  Racial and socioeconomic disparities in the selection of prostate brachytherapy.

Authors:  David Schreiber; Shan-Chin Chen; Justin Rineer; Jeffrey Weiss; Marvin Rotman; David Schwartz
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2013-09-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.