The impact of technological advances on the evolution of 3D conformal brachytherapy for early prostate cancer.

Permanent implantation of I-125 and Pd-103 seeds is one of the widely used treatment options for the early stage prostate cancer with minimum normal tissue complications and long-term local control of the tumor. This is possible because of several technological advances made in the past decade to better understand the procedural aspects of implantations with the desired clinical outcome and with acceptable morbidities. In addition, with the widespread use of PSA testing, more widely disseminated information about prostate cancer and increased patient awareness, over 70% of patients are diagnosed early with localized disease and therefore are candidates for definitive local therapy. Delineation of soft tissue structures including the prostate, rectum, urethra and bladder has become more accurate with the use of imaging modalities including Ultrasound and MRI, with or without the CT. A re-evaluation of the dosimetric parameters of the radioactive sources has lead to a more precise estimate of the dose delivered to the prostate and the associated critical normal structures. Technological improvements in the post implant dosimetry have helped to understand the factors, which makes an implant a "good implant" or a "poor implant". Intraoperative treatment planning with on line dosimetry is emerging as one of the best approaches for prostate brachytherapy. In addition, better software is now available producing dose-volume histograms with 3D target and normal tissue reconstruction. The combination of seed implant followed by IMRT would provide scope for differentially boosting the regions under-dosed because of uncontrollable and unexpected reasons during the implant and unsuspected micro extensions of the tumor.

Negative influence of changing biopsy practice patterns on the predictive value of prostate-specific antigen for cancer detection on prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: A correlation between prostate specific antigen (PSA) level and positive prostate biopsy rate was established in an era when biopsy practice patterns were different from what they are today. We evaluated if changes in biopsy practice patterns have affected the ability of PSA to predict cancer detection on prostate biopsy in the current era. METHODS: Of 3634 prostate biopsies performed from 1993-2005, 1607 met criteria for analysis. Biopsy data were divided into 3 time-cohorts (1993-1997, 1998-2001, and 2002-2005) to assess for practice patterns shifts and correlation between PSA and biopsy results. RESULTS: Significant changes in biopsy practice patterns included an increase in biopsy cores and more frequent use of PSA 2.5-3.99 ng/mL as a biopsy indication. In men with normal DRE, a moderate correlation between PSA and positive biopsy rate did exist from 1993-1997, but was subsequently lost. On multivariate analysis, PSA was not a significant predictor of biopsy result in men with normal DRE. CONCLUSIONS: Early in the PSA era, the predictive power of PSA depended on multiple factors: high prevalence of disease, higher prevalence of high-grade disease, and low likelihood of prostate cancer diagnosis in men with low PSA. Now, beyond the culling effect of increased biopsy incidence and with shifted biopsy practice patterns, the correlation between PSA and biopsy result is lost in men with normal DRE. Diagnosing a higher proportion of tumors in men with a PSA between 2.0-4.0 ng/mL has negatively influenced the predictive value of PSA for cancer detection.

Long-term survival in men with high grade prostate cancer: a comparison between conservative treatment, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy--a propensity scoring approach.

PURPOSE: We performed a retrospective cohort study using propensity score analysis to calculate long-term survival in patients with prostate cancer with Gleason score 8 or greater who were treated with conservative therapy, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1, 1980 and December 31, 1997, 3,159 patients in the Henry Ford Health System were diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Of these patients 453 had a Gleason score of 8 or greater in the biopsy specimen and they were the cohort. The end points were overall and prostate cancer specific survival. Propensity score analysis was used to more precisely compare the 3 treatments of observation, radiation and radical prostatectomy. Median patient followup was longer in the radical prostatectomy arm than in the conservative treatment and radiation therapy arms (68 months vs 52 and 54, respectively). RESULTS: Of the 453 patients 197 (44%) were treated conservatively, 137 (30%) received radiation therapy and 119 (26%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Using propensity scoring analysis median overall survival for conservative therapy, radiation and radical prostatectomy was 5.2, 6.7 and 9.7 years, respectively. Median cancer specific survival was 7.8 years for conservative therapy and more than 14 years for radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. The risk of cancer specific death following radical prostatectomy was 68% lower than for conservative treatment and 49% lower than for radiation therapy (p<0.001 and 0.053, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Survival of men with high grade prostate cancer can be improved by radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy.