Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:11:24.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Long-term experience with 181 patients who received transperineal I-125 implants for prostate cancer: Efficacy and urinary toxicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2011

Eliahu Gez*
Affiliation:
Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Joshua Genesin
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Daniel Shahar
Affiliation:
Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Valeriya Semenisty
Affiliation:
Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Tanya Mashiac
Affiliation:
Quality Assurance Unit, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Rachel Bar Deroma
Affiliation:
Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
David Kakiashvili
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Abraham Kuten
Affiliation:
Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Simon Meretyck
Affiliation:
Department of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
*
Correspondence to: Dr. Eliahu Gez, Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, 8 Ha’Aliyah Street, Haifa 35254, Israel. E-mail: e_gez@rambam.health.gov.il

Abstract

Background: In low-risk prostate cancer, the target volume for radiotherapy is the prostate gland only and prostate brachytherapy with an I-125 implant provides the most conformal radiotherapy.

Methods: Patients underwent a pre-implant prostate volume study from which a treatment plan was developed 2 weeks prior to implant. A dosimetric study was performed 1 month following the implant. The prescription dose was 145 Gy with the 95% isodose line covering the entire target volume. The maximal dose to the urethra was less than 210 Gy. Follow-up included serum PSA and IPSS evaluation every 3 months during the first year and then every 6 months beginning in the second year.

Results: During December 2000–March 2009, 181 patients with early prostate cancer underwent I-125 implant. The median post-implant PSA value of the entire cohort was 0.7 ng/ml. No patient developed clinical failure. In the follow-up, nine patients had biochemical failure according to the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix definition (Nadir + 2.0 ng/ml). Of these, one patient refused hormonal therapy desiring to preserve sexual potency, and eight patients received hormonal therapy with a decreased serum PSA to 0.0 ng/ml. The treatment side effects were primarily urinary disturbances.

Conclusion: An I-125 implant is an effective and well-tolerated treatment and should be recommended for patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boehmer, D, Maingon, P, Poortmans, P, Baron, MH, Miralbell, R, Remouchamps, V, Scrase, C, Bossi, A, Bolla, M; EORTC radiation oncology group. Guidelines for primary radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2006; 79:259269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salembier, C, Lavagnini, P, Nickers, P, Mangili, P, Rijnders, A, Polo, A, Venselaar, J, Hoskin, P; GEC ESTRO PROBATE Group. Tumour and target volumes in permanent prostate brachytherapy: a supplement to the ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2007; 83:310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilaris, BS. Brachytherapy in cancer of the prostate: an historical perspective. Semin Surg Oncol 1997; 13:399405.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragde, H, Korb, LJ, Elgamal, AA, Grado, GL, Nadir, BS. Modern prostate brachytherapy. Prostate specific antigen results in 219 patients with up to 12 years of observed follow-up. Cancer 2000; 89:135141.Google ScholarPubMed
Matzkin, H, Kaver, I, Bramante-Schreiber, L, Agai, R, Merimsky, O, Inbar, M. Comparison between two iodine-125 brachytherapy implant techniques: pre-planning and intra-operative by various dosimetry quality indicators. Radiother Oncol 2003; 68:289294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelefsky, MJ, Yamada, Y, Cohen, GN, Shippy, A, Chan, H, Fridman, D, Zaider, M. Five-year outcome of intraoperative conformal permanent I-125 interstitial implantation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67:6570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crook, J, Borg, J, Evans, A, Toi, A, Saibishkumar, EP, Fung, S, Ma, C. 10-Year experience with I-125 prostate brachytherapy at the Princess Margaret Hospital: Results for 1,100 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, in press.Google Scholar
Sylvester, JE, Grimm, PD, Wong, J, Galbreath, RW, Merrick, G, Blasko, JC. Fifteen-Year Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival, Cause-Specific Survival, and Overall Survival following I(125) Prostate Brachytherapy in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, in press.Google Scholar
Nag, S, Beyer, D, Friedland, J, Grimm, P, Nath, R. American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 44:789799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roach, M 3rd, Hanks, G, Thames, H Jr, Schellhammer, P, Shipley, WU, Sokol, GH, Sandler, H. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65:965974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, EL, Meier, P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53:457481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, HB, Whitney, DR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 1947; 18:5060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrentschuk, N, Klotz, L. Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: a short review. Korean J Urol 2010; 51:665670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmberg, L, Bill-Axelson, A, Helgesen, F, Salo, JO, Folmerz, P, Häggman, M, Andersson, SO, Spångberg, A, Busch, C, Nordling, S, Palmgren, J, Adami, HO, Johansson, JE, Norlén, BJ; Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group Study Number 4. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:781789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, A, Zagars, GK, Starkschall, G, Antolak, JA, Lee, JJ, Huang, E, von Eschenbach, AC, Kuban, DA, Rosen, I. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53:10971105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partin, AW, Kattan, MW, Subong, EN, Walsh, PC, Wojno, KJ, Oesterling, JE, Scardino, PT, Pearson, JD. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277:14451451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Amico, AV, Moul, J, Carroll, PR, Sun, L, Lubeck, D, Chen, MH. Prostate specific antigen doubling time as a surrogate end point for prostate cancer specific mortality following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Urol 2004; 172:S42–6; discussion S46.Google ScholarPubMed
Gelblum, DY, Potters, L, Ashley, R, Waldbaum, R, Wang, XH, Leibel, S. Urinary morbidity following ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45:5967CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terk, MD, Stock, RG, Stone, NN. Identification of patients at increased risk for prolonged urinary retention following radioactive seed implantation of the prostate. J Urol 1998; 160:13791382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, SG, Millar, JL, Duchesne, GM, Dally, MJ, Royce, PL, Snow, RM. Factors predicting for urinary morbidity following 125iodine transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2004; 73:3338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed