No abstract

Objective: To evaluate the initial results of brachytherapy for prostate cancer with permanent iodine-125 implant in Japan. Methods:The results obtained with brachytherapy in the initial 100 Japanese patients treated at Nagano Municipal Hospital were reviewed. Patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of less than 10 ng/mL and a Gleason's scores of 5, 6, 3 + 4 were classified as having a low risk of recurrence. Patients with a PSA level of 10-20 ng/mL and/or a Gleason's score of 4 + 3 were classified as having an intermediate risk for recurrence. Seventy-eight of the low-risk patients and 19 of the intermediate-risk patients were treated by seed implants alone, or seed implants combined with preceding external radiation, respectively. A total of 53 patients received neoadjuvant hormone therapy. The efficacy and morbidity of brachytherapy were investigated using the serum PSA, International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life score and uroflowmetry data. Results:The average V100 and D90 obtained by post-implant dosimetry was 94.3 and 113.7%, respectively. Serum PSA decreased gradually after treatment, although it had still not reached a nadir after 1 year. There was little difference of the PSA level between the patients with and without neoadjuvant hormone therapy even at 1 year after seed implantation. There were no PSA biochemical failure or clinical recurrence during the follow-up period. Voiding symptoms worsened until 3 months after treatment, and then gradually improved. Acute urinary retention occurred transiently in one patient (1%). Rectal bleeding and severe diarrhea did not occur. Conclusion: Brachytherapy is a feasible and effective option for the treatment of prostate cancer in Japanese men. Brachytherapy may have a different effect in Japanese patients with respect to voiding symptoms. Urinary retention was rare, but voiding symptoms were persistent in Japanese patients. Neoadjuvant hormone therapy deserves investigation to determine whether it can achieve better results, especially in patients with an intermediate risk.

We compared clinical outcomes associated with seed brachytherapy (SEED-BT) alone and SEED-BT plus external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer using propensity score-matched analysis. From 2006 to 2011, 993 patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk were treated with either SEED-BT alone (n = 775) or SEED-BT plus EBRT (n = 158) at 3 tertiary hospitals. In the propensity score-matched analysis (102 pairs), median follow-up was 95 months (range 18–153 months). The 8-year biochemical recurrence-free rate (bRFR) was significantly better with SEED-BT alone than with combined radiotherapy (93.3% vs. 88.4%; HR 0.396; 95% CI 0.158–0.991). Grade 2 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were significantly fewer with SEED-BT alone than with combined radiotherapy (21.0% vs. 33.2%; HR 0.521; 95% CI 0.308–0.881). Similarly, grade 2 or greater late gastrointestinal toxicities were significantly fewer with SEED-BT alone (0% vs. 12.2%; HR 0.125; 95% CI 0.040–0.390). For the unfavorable intermediate-risk subgroups, SEED-BT alone yielded a significantly better bRFR than the combined radiotherapy (HR 0.325; 95% CI 0.115–0.915). SEED-BT alone might be a better disease-management plan than SEED-BT plus EBRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer regardless of favorable and unfavorable characteristics.

Abbreviations & Acronyms ADT = androgen deprivation therapy ED = erectile dysfunction FAS = full analysis set IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score LDR = low-dose-rate brachytherapy LUTS = lower urinary tract symptoms N.S. = not significant OABSS = overactive bladder symptom score PDE5 = phosphodiesterase-5 PSA = prostate-specific antigen PVR = postvoid residual urine volume Q max = maximum urinary flow rate QoL = quality of life SAS = safety analysis set SHIM = Sexual Health Inventory for Men UrD30% = minimal dose received by 30% of the urethral volume a1ARA = alpha 1-adrenergic receptor antagonist

Background We compared the oncological outcomes of patients who received seed brachytherapy (SEED-BT) with those who received radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods Candidates were patients treated with either SEED-BT (n = 933) or RP (n = 334). One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust the patients’ backgrounds. We compared the biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free rate using the Phoenix definition (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] nadir plus 2 ng/mL) for SEED-BT and the surgical definition (PSA cut-off value of 0.2 ng/mL) for RP. We also directly compared the BCR-free rates using the same PSA cut-off value of 0.2 ng/mL for both SEED-BT and RP. Results In the propensity score-matched analysis with 214 pairs, the median follow-up treatment was 96 months (range 1–158 months). Fifty-three patients (24.7%) were treated with combined SEED-BT and external-beam radiotherapy. Forty-three patients (20.0%) received salvage radiotherapy after RP. Comparing the BCR-free rate using the above definitions for SEED-BT and RP showed that SEED-BT yielded a significantly better 8-year BCR-free rate than did RP (87.4% vs. 74.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.420, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.273–0.647). Comparing the 8-year BCR-free rate using the surgical definition for both treatments showed no significant difference between the two treatments (76.7% vs. 74.3%, HR 0.913, 95% CI 0.621–1.341). SEED-BT had a significantly better 8-year salvage hormonal therapy-free rate than did RP (92.0% vs. 85.6%, HR 0.528, 95% CI 0.296–0.942, P = 0.030). The 8-year metastasis-free survival rates (98.5% vs. 99.0%, HR 1.382, 95% CI 0.313–6.083, P = 0.668) and overall survival rates (91.9% vs. 94.6%, HR 1.353, 95% CI 0.690–2.650) did not significantly differ between the treatments. Conclusions The BCR-free rates did not significantly differ between patients treated with SEED-BT and those treated with RP for intermediate-risk prostate cancer even when they were directly compared using the surgical definition for BCR. SEED-BT and RP can be adequately compared for oncological outcomes.