Journal Home
Search for

Volume 77, Issue 5, Pages 1315-1321 (1 August 2010)


View previous. 6 of 53 View next.

Young Men Have Equivalent Biochemical Outcomes Compared With Older Men After Treatment With Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer

Ryan J. Burri, M.D., Alice Y. Ho, M.D., Kevin Forsythe, M.D., Jamie A. Cesaretti, M.D.§, Nelson N. Stone, M.D., Richard G. Stock, M.D.Corresponding Author Informationemail address

Received 22 May 2009; received in revised form 22 June 2009; accepted 24 June 2009. published online 30 December 2009.

Purpose

To evaluate retrospectively the biochemical outcomes of young men treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials

From 1990 to 2005, 1,665 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy ± hormone therapy (HT) ± external beam radiotherapy and underwent ≥2 years of follow-up. Patients were stratified on the basis of age: ≤60 (n = 378) and >60 years (n = 1,287). Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir plus 2 ng/mL. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the association of variables with freedom from biochemical failure (FFbF).

Results

Median follow-up was 68 months (range, 24–180) for men ≤60 years and 66 months (range, 24–200) for men >60. For the entire group, the actuarial 5- and 8-year FFbF rates were 94% and 88%, respectively. Men ≤60 demonstrated similar 5- and 8-year FFbF (95% and 92%) compared with men >60 (93% and 87%; p = 0.071). A larger percent of young patients presented with low-risk disease; lower clinical stage, Gleason score (GS), and pretreatment PSA values; were treated after 1997; did not receive any HT; and had a high biologic effective dose (BED) of radiation (all ps <0.001). On multivariate analysis, PSA (p = 0.001), GS (p = 0.005), and BED (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with FFbF, but age was not (p = 0.665).

Conclusion

Young men achieve excellent 5- and 8-year biochemical control rates that are comparable to those of older men after prostate brachytherapy. Young age should not be a deterrent when considering brachytherapy as a primary treatment option for clinically localized prostate cancer.

 Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York

 Department of Urology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York

 Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

§ Florida Radiation Oncology Group, Jacksonville, Florida

Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Richard G. Stock, M.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, Box 1236, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029. Tel: (212) 241-7500; Fax: (212) 410-7194

 Conflict of interest: J. A. Cesaretti is a consultant to C.R. Bard. N. N. Stone is owner of Prologics LLC and a consultant to Nihan Medi-Physics and B & K Medical. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

PII: S0360-3016(09)01000-1

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.052


View previous. 6 of 53 View next.