Iodine-125 brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer and urinary morbidity: a prospective comparison of two seed implant methods—preplanning and intraoperative planning

Matzkin, Haim; Kaver, Issac; Stenger, Amira; Agai, R.; Esna, Noam; Chen, Juza

doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00407-2

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Historically, the prostate has been implanted using pre-planning (PP) dosimetric methods [2,4], where a planning transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate volume study was done several weeks before the procedure, a treatment plan was conceived and on the day of the implant in the operating room the intraoperative patient positioning should mimic exactly the pre-implant study 3 dimensional cohorts. Several groups have described the potential and observed disadvantages of this method [5-7]. The evolution of TRUS and mainly the availability of sophisticated treatment planning computers, have evolved into the intraoperative planning (IoP) methodology and made better accuracy of intraoperative dosimetry and seed placement [1,8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus enabling us a fair comparison of the implant methods as the only variable changed along time. Previous reports of our group dealt with early post treatment results comparison: computerized tomography (CT)-based dosimetry calculations [10], urinary morbidity [5] and early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics following treatment [11]. Ultimately, clinical outcomes such as biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rate are of the utmost importance therefore we report our long-term PSA-based bNED rates for the groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison between preoperative and real-time intraoperative planning 125I permanent prostate brachytherapy: long-term clinical biochemical outcome

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome through biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates among men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with two different brachytherapy implant techniques: preoperative planning (PP) and real-time planning (IoP).MethodsFrom June 1998 to July 2011, 1176 men with median age of 67 years and median follow-up of 47 months underwent transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate 125I-brachytherapy using either PP (132) or IoP (1044) for clinical T1c-T2b prostate adenocarcinoma Gleason <8 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20 ng/ml. Men with Gleason 7 received combination of brachytherapy, external beam radiation and 6-month androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Biological effective dose (BED) was calculated using computerized tomography (CT)-based dosimetry 1-month postimplant. Failure was determined according to the Phoenix definition.ResultsThe 5- and 7-year actuarial bNED rate was 95% and 90% respectively. The 7-year actuarial bNED was 67% for the PP group and 95% for the IoP group (P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analyses identified implant technique or BED, ADT and PSA as independent prognostic factors for biochemical failure.ConclusionsFollowing our previous published results addressing the limited and disappointing outcomes of PP method when compared to IoP based on CT dosimetry and PSA kinetics, we now confirm the long-term clinical, bNED rates clear cut superiority of IoP implant methodology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between preoperative and real-time intraoperative planning 125I permanent prostate brachytherapy: long-term clinical biochemical outcome

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Either implant techniques were associated with very low urinary retention rates or other grade 3 or greater urologic morbidity. 23 Almost all men had worse urinary symptoms for the first 6 to 9 months. The IPSS returned to preimplant values (71 point) within 9 to 18 months.…”

Section: Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23,24 Patients were scheduled to receive a target-matched peripheral dose of 145 Gy (preplan method) or 160 Gy (intraoperative method) according to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 43 guidelines. 25 All underwent a computed tomography (CT)-based postimplant dosimetry evaluation at 1 month.…”

Section: Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual function after permanent 125I-brachytherapy for prostate cancer

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We prospectively assessed patients' erectile function (EF) using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and a global assessment questionnaire (GAQ) following permanent 125 Ibrachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Of 378 treated patients, 220 had a minimal 2-y follow-up and 131/220 were sexually active prior to brachytherapy, with an EF domain score of Z11 (study group). Patients were allowed sildenafil at any time of the study. The patients' mean EF score, without excluding patients who used sildenafil, dropped within 3 months after brachytherapy, recovered at the end of the first year and remained unchanged for at least up to 2 y after treatment regardless of the addition of neoadjuvant hormone therapy to 125 Ibrachytherapy. Analysis of the GAQ revealed that 80% of the patients were satisfied with their sexual function up to 3 y after treatment. Any detrimental effect of permanent brachytherapy with or without the addition of hormone therapy on EF is reversible, and recovery is expected at 1 y after treatment in most patients.

show abstract

“…Stranded or linked seeds have the advantage that they are less likely to migrate from their implant position than individually implanted seeds (Sommerkamp, et al 1988, Reed, et al, 2007, Spadlinger, et al, 2006. Additionally, implants can be either performed via pre-plans, in which a planning ultrasound is performed before the surgery, or with intra-operative planning (Matzkin, et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%