Cargando…

New sparse implantation technique of I-125 low-dose-rate brachytherapy using concomitant short-term hormonal treatment for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: An initial study of therapeutic feasibility

This study aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes and post-implantation complications of the concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with I-125 low-dose-rate (LDR)-prostate brachytherapy (sparse implantation technique: SIT) in comparison with the conventional non-ADT using whole gland brac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Young Dong, Oh, Jong Jin, Shin, Hyun Soo, Park, Dong Soo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6904679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31822761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55317-1
Descripción
Sumario:This study aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes and post-implantation complications of the concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with I-125 low-dose-rate (LDR)-prostate brachytherapy (sparse implantation technique: SIT) in comparison with the conventional non-ADT using whole gland brachytherapy (CWT). 302 localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients were treated with CWT (implantation dose: 145 Gy) and 215 patients were treated with SIT, which applied reduced implantation dose of 123.5 Gy. SIT group had ADT consisting of bicalutamide 50 mg/day plus 3-month depot (11.25 mg) of leuprolide acetate subcutaneously on the post-implantation day-0. Post-implantation complications and biochemical-recurrence-free-survival (BCRS) were compared between the two groups. After ADT, SIT group had 40.9% patients (40.9%) with prostate volume reduction between 20–30%. At 3-months post-implantation, SIT group presented significantly better IPSS than CWT group (p = 0.038). Both groups showed decrease in IIEF-5 score at 3-months post-implantation, but ST group showed significantly better mean IIEF-5 scores (13.5) than the CWT group (11.1) (p = 0.045). For 3-months post-implantation dosimetry, both groups showed no significant differences regarding D90 (CWT 156 Gy vs. SIT 152 Gy). CWT group had 3 patients with rectal toxicity ≥radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) grade 2 and 1 patient with urinary toxicity ≥RTOG grade 2 whereas SIT group had no patient with urinary or rectal toxicity ≥RTOG grade 2. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed no significant differences regarding PCSS were observed between the two groups (p = 0.350). The SIT group showed compatible oncological outcomes to the CWT and relatively smaller number of post-implantation complications within low- and intermediate-risk PCa patients.