RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: A large prostate volume has historically been a relative contraindication to prostate brachytherapy (PB) because of concerns of toxicity and potential pubic arch interference. Common practice has been to downsize large prostates with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before proceeding with brachytherapy. The present study compares postimplant dosimetry in patients with prostate volumes >50 cc with those with prostate volumes =50 cc. METHODS: A review of all patients who underwent PB at our institution from 2001 to 2006 was performed. Postimplant dosimetry was obtained approximately 4 weeks after brachytherapy. RESULTS: One-hundred forty-five out of a total of 148 patients had available dosimetry. In the 113 patients with prostate volumes =50 cc (mean, 35.4 cc, range, 14.2-49.7 cc); the mean D(90) (dose which covers 90% of the prostate), V(100) (volume of prostate receiving 100% of the prescribed dose), V(150) (volume of prostate receiving 150% of the prescribed dose), and V(200) (volume of prostate receiving 200% of the prescribed dose) was 128.9%, 95.6%, 73.9%, and 51.2%, respectively. In the 32 patients with prostate volumes >50 cc (mean 58.1 cc, range 50.2-86.0 cc); the mean D(90), V(100), V(150), and V(200) was 125.1%, 95.2%, 68.2%, and 41.7%, respectively. The rectal V(100) was 1.0 cc for both cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference between the cohorts with respect to postimplant dosimetry for D(90), V(100), and V(150). The V(200) for prostate volumes >50 cc was significantly lower (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, patients with prostate volumes >50 cc have postimplant dosimetry parameters similar to patients with prostate volumes =50 cc for D(90), V(100), and V(150); and significantly lower values for V(200). These results suggest that patients with large prostate volumes may not need to be routinely placed on hormonal therapy; sparing patients the side effects of hormonal therapy, and sparing the health care system the costs of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist injections.
Assuntos
Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Braquiterapia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Próstata/anatomia & histologia , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Dosagem Radioterapêutica , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
PURPOSE: The present study evaluates the postimplant dosimetry when free-hand needles were placed to overcome interference from the pubic arch. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A review of all patients who underwent prostate brachytherapy at our institution from 2001 to 2006 was performed. Postimplant dosimetry in men requiring free-hand needle placement was compared with postimplant dosimetry in men not requiring free-hand needle placement. RESULTS: Of the 145 patients who underwent prostate brachytherapy, 8 patients required free-hand needle placement. The mean prostate volume in the free-hand needle cohort was 46.0cc with a mean of 3.4 free-hand needles placed. In the 137 patients not requiring free-hand needle placement, the mean volume was 39.7cc. The mean D(90), V(100), V(150), and rectal V(100) for the free-hand cohort was 129.5%, 96.3%, 81.6%, and 1.45cc, respectively. The mean D(90), V(100), V(150), and rectal V(100) in men not requiring free-hand needle placement was 126.8%, 97.1%, 78.7%, and 1.03cc, respectively. CONCLUSION: The present study finds that adequate postimplant dosimetry can be obtained if free-hand needles are required due to pubic arch interference.