scholarly journals A critical evaluation of the clinical value of high-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 227-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. C. Sharman
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Large Fraction ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy ◽  
Ldr Brachytherapy

Prostate cancer has been treated with low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy for early localised disease in the form of permanent seed implants, with all its inherent problems in terms of dosimetry and seed migration. High-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy has mainly been utilised as a boost to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with locally advanced disease. However, limited studies investigating HDR as a monotherapy for early local disease are yielding promising results in terms of biochemical control and reduced toxicity. With the ability to optimise the plan and conform the dose, dose escalation can be achieved whilst sparing normal tissue. Recent studies to assess the α/β ratio of prostate cancer have shown this to be low, making this tumour sensitive to large fractions or hypofractionation. The HDR delivery and large fraction sizes may be advantageous in tumours sensitive to radiation fraction size making HDR brachytherapy the treatment of choice over LDR brachytherapy and EBRT.

Health-related quality of life changes due to high-dose rate brachytherapy, low-dose rate brachytherapy, or intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
Tobin Joel Crill Strom ◽  
Alex Cruz ◽  
Nicholas Figura ◽  
Kushagra Shrinath ◽  
Kevin Nethers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy ◽  
Ldr Brachytherapy ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

72 Background: To compare urinary, bowel, and sexual health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes due to high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) monotherapy for prostate cancer. Methods: Between January 2002 and September 2013, 413 low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were treated with HDR brachytherapy monotherapy to 2,700-2,800 cGy in two fractions (n=85), iodine-125 LDR brachytherapy monotherapy to 14,500 cGy in one fraction (n=249), or IMRT monotherapy to 7,400-8,100 cGy in 37-45 fractions (n=79) without pelvic lymph node irradiation. No androgen deprivation therapy was given. Patients used an International Prostate Symptoms Score questionnaire, an Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite-26 bowel questionnaire, and a Sexual Health Inventory for Men questionnaire to assess their urinary, bowel, and sexual HRQOL, respectively, pre-treatment and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months post-treatment. Results: Median follow-up was 32 months. HDR brachytherapy and IMRT patients had significantly less deterioration in their urinary HRQOL than LDR brachytherapy patients at 1 and 3 months post-irradiation. The only significant decrease in bowel HRQOL between the groups was seen 18 months following treatment, at which point IMRT patients had a slight, but significant, deterioration in their bowel HRQOL compared with HDR and LDR brachytherapy patients. HDR brachytherapy patients had worse sexual HRQOL than both LDR brachytherapy and IMRT patients following treatment. Conclusions: IMRT and HDR brachytherapy cause less severe acute worsening of urinary HRQOL than LDR brachytherapy. However, IMRT causes a slight, but significant, worsening of bowel HRQOL compared with HDR and LDR brachytherapy.

Timing of high-dose rate brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy in intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer (THEPCA) patients and its effects on toxicity and quality of life: Results of a randomized feasibility trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Imtiaz Ahmed ◽  
Sharon Shibu Thomas ◽  
Alexander Cain ◽  
Jufen Zhang ◽  
Sreekanth Palvai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy

236 Background: Advances in brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and image-guided radiotherapy have revolutionized radiotherapy delivery. Acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities remain a significant issue. Currently there is no European consensus on the timing of high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy in relation to EBRT. Schedules of HDR boost before or after EBRT vary significantly between institutions.The incidence of GI and GU toxicities was assessed in patients receiving HDR brachytherapy before and after EBRT. Methods: Men with Intermediate/high risk localized prostate cancer were randomized to Arm A (HDR brachytherapy before EBRT) or Arm B (HDR brachytherapy after EBRT). Both arms received a HDR boost of 15Gy and 46Gy in 23 fractions of EBRT. All patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for up to 2 years. Patients were followed quarterly up to a year. CTCAE scores for GU and GI toxicities were taken. IPSS, IEFL and FACT-P scores were collected. Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze the association between GU and GI toxicities. The T-test compared the mean differences in IPSS total scores at each follow-up. Analysis of variance evaluated the difference at follow up. Post-hoc testing and Bonferroni correction was applied. Results: 100 patients were randomized between 2015 and 2017. Data for 88 patients was available at cutoff. Mean age was 69 years (SD: 4.6). Age, Gleason score, TNM and clinical staging were similar in each arm. Mean IPSS Score was similar between both arms at baseline Arm A (6.52) & Arm B (6.57). 12 months follow up showed mild worsening of symptoms in both arms, but no significant difference noticed between Arm A (8.02) & Arm B (8.14) p=0.55. At 12 months, Grade 1 and 2 GU toxicities were more frequent in Arm A (22.88% & 5.28%, p=0.669) compared to Arm B (19.36% and 2.64%, p=0.485). Grade 1 GI toxicity was more common in Arm B (23.76%) than Arm A (21.2%), p=0.396. Grade 2 GI toxicities were more common in Arm A 5.28% vs 3.52%, p=0.739. Baseline mean IIEF scores were 10.9 and 10.53 in Arm A and B respectively. At 12 months this was 6.6 in Arm A and 7.11 in Arm B, but not statistically significant. FACT-P scores were not different in either arm, with good QOL scores maintained throughout. Mean score at baseline (125.18) was observed to be similar at 12 months follow up at (126.10). The PTV, CTV & OAR dose were compared and no significant differences were found. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in GI and GU related toxicities up to a year between patients receiving HDR brachytherapy before or after EBRT. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms with good QOL scores. Longer follow up and a phase III multicenter RCT would be needed to validate findings. Clinical trial information: NCT02618161.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document