International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 76, Issue 2 , Pages 355-360, 1 February 2010

Local Control Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes

Presented at the ASTRO meeting, 2008.

  • Nelson N. Stone, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Nelson N. Stone, M.D., 21 Timber Trail, Suffern, NY 10901. Tel: (212) 535-0755; Fax: (845) 362-8561
  • ,
  • Richard G. Stock, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York
  • ,
  • Jamie A. Cesaretti, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York
  • ,
  • Pam Unger, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York

Received 25 November 2008; received in revised form 20 January 2009; accepted 29 January 2009. published online 24 July 2009.

Purpose

To determine factors that influence local control and systemic relapse in patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB).

Methods and Materials

A total of 584 patients receiving PPB alone or PPB with external beam radiation therapy (19.5%) agreed to undergo prostate biopsy (PB) at 2 years postimplantion and yearly if results were positive or if the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level increased. Short-term hormone therapy was used with 280 (47.9%) patients. Radiation doses were converted to biologically effective doses (BED) (using α/β = 2). Comparisons were made by chi-square analysis and linear regression. Survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The median PSA concentration was 7.1 ng/ml, and the median follow-up period was 7.1 years. PB results were positive for 48/584 (8.2%) patients. Positive biopsy results by BED group were as follows: 22/121 (18.2%) patients received a BED of  ≤150 Gy; 15/244 (6.1%) patients received >150 to 200 Gy; and 6/193 (3.1%; p < 0.001) patients received >200 Gy. Significant associations of positive PB results by risk group were low-risk group BED (p = 0.019), intermediate-risk group hormone therapy (p = 0.011) and BED (p = 0.040), and high-risk group BED (p = 0.004). Biochemical freedom from failure rate at 7 years was 82.7%. Biochemical freedom from failure rate by PB result was 84.7% for negative results vs. 59.2% for positive results (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis revealed significant associations with BED (p = 0.038) and PB results (p = 0.002) in low-risk patients, with BED (p = 0.003) in intermediate-risk patients, and with Gleason score (p = 0.006), PSA level (p < 0.001), and PB result (p = 0.038) in high-risk patients. Fifty-three (9.1%) patients died, of which eight deaths were due to prostate cancer. Cause-specific survival was 99.2% for negative PB results vs. 87.6% for positive PB results (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Higher radiation doses are required to achieve local control following PPB. A BED of >200 Gy with an α/β ratio of 2 yields 96.9% local control rate. Failure to establish local control impacts survival.

Brachytherapy, Prostate cancer, Local control

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Conflict of interest: Dr. Stone has ownership interest in Prologics LLC.

PII: S0360-3016(09)00339-3

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.078

International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 76, Issue 2 , Pages 355-360, 1 February 2010