Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy versus as boost in unfavorable intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer: A matched-pair analysis.
Willen, Benjamin D; Salari, Kamran; Zureick, Andrew H; Lang, Doyle; Ye, Hong; Marvin, Kimberly; Nandalur, Sirisha R; Krauss, Daniel J.
Affiliation
  • Willen BD; Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI. Electronic address: benjamin.willen@beaumont.org.
  • Salari K; Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI.
  • Zureick AH; Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI.
  • Lang D; Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI.
  • Ye H; Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI.
  • Marvin K; Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI.
  • Nandalur SR; Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital-Troy, Sterling Heights, MI.
  • Krauss DJ; Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI.
Brachytherapy ; 22(5): 571-579, 2023.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37328337
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy (HDR-M), or as a boost combined with external beam radiotherapy (HDR-B), are both suitable treatments for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, data directly comparing these two approaches for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients are lacking. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with NCCN-defined UIR prostate cancer treated from 1997 to 2020 were identified in a prospectively maintained, single institution database. HDR-M and HDR-B patients were matched using three factors age ±3 years; Gleason score (major and minor); and clinical T stage. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA nadir (nPSA) + 2. Available acute and chronic toxicities are additionally reported.

RESULTS:

A total of 247 patients were identified (170 receiving HDR-B, 77 receiving HDR-M), ultimately yielding 70 matched pairs (140 patients) for inclusion. The median followup time was 5.2 years for HDR-M compared with 9.3 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). The two cohorts had similar calculated prostate EQD2 (HDR-B 118 Gy vs. HDR-M 115 Gy, p = 0.977). No significant differences in OS, CSS, DM, LRR, or FFBF were identified. HDR-B had an increased rate of any acute grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity and worse acute dysuria and diarrhea. Chronic gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was similar.

CONCLUSIONS:

These data suggest that HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective treatment option for selected patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and provides a more favorable gastrointestinal toxicity profile than HDR-B. Prospective trials should be conducted to refine the selection process for this heterogeneous cohort of patients.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms / Brachytherapy / Gastrointestinal Diseases Type of study: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans / Male Language: En Journal: Brachytherapy Journal subject: RADIOTERAPIA Year: 2023 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostatic Neoplasms / Brachytherapy / Gastrointestinal Diseases Type of study: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans / Male Language: En Journal: Brachytherapy Journal subject: RADIOTERAPIA Year: 2023 Document type: Article