To report outcomes for 1,111 men treated with iodine-125 brachytherapy (BT) at a single institution.
A total of 1,111 men (median age, 63) were treated with iodine-125 prostate BT for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer between March 1999 and November 2008. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.4 ng/ml (range, 0.9-26.1). T stage was T1c in 66% and T2 in 34% of patients. Gleason score was 6 in 90.1% and 7 or 8 in 9.9% of patients. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (2-6 months course) was used in 10.1% of patients and combined external radiotherapy (45 Gy) with BT (110 Gy) in 4.1% (n = 46) of patients. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to determine predictors of failure.
Median follow-up was 42 months (range, 6-114), but for biochemical freedom from relapse, a minimum PSA test follow-up of 30 months was required (median 54; n = 776). There were 27 failures, yielding an actuarial 7-year disease-free survival rate of 95.2% (96 at risk beyond 84 months). All failures underwent repeat 12-core transrectal ultrasound -guided biopsies, confirming 8 local failures. On multivariate analysis, Gleason score was the only independent predictor of failure (p = 0.001; hazard ratio, 4.8 (1.9-12.4). Median International Prostate Symptom score from 12 to 108 months ranged between 3 and 9. Of the men reporting baseline potency, 82.8% retained satisfactory erectile function beyond 5 years.
Iodine-125 prostate BT is a highly effective treatment option for favorable- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer and is associated with maintenance of good urinary and erectile functions.
BACKGROUND: Early endometrial cancer with low-risk pathological features can be successfully treated by surgery alone. External beam radiotherapy added to surgery has been investigated in several small trials, which have mainly included women at intermediate risk of recurrence. In these trials, postoperative radiotherapy has been shown to reduce the risk of isolated local recurrence but there is no evidence that it improves recurrence-free or overall survival. We report the findings from the ASTEC and EN.5 trials, which investigated adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in women with early-stage disease and pathological features suggestive of intermediate or high risk of recurrence and death from endometrial cancer. METHODS: Between July, 1996, and March, 2005, 905 (789 ASTEC, 116 EN.5) women with intermediate-risk or high-risk early-stage disease from 112 centres in seven countries (UK, Canada, Poland, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, USA) were randomly assigned after surgery to observation (453) or to external beam radiotherapy (452). A target dose of 40-46 Gy in 20-25 daily fractions to the pelvis, treating five times a week, was specified. Primary outcome measure was overall survival, and all analyses were by intention to treat. These trials were registered ISRCTN 16571884 (ASTEC) and NCT 00002807 (EN.5). FINDINGS: After a median follow-up of 58 months, 135 women (68 observation, 67 external beam radiotherapy) had died. There was no evidence that overall survival with external beam radiotherapy was better than observation, hazard ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.75-1.48; p=0.77). 5-year overall survival was 84% in both groups. Combining data from ASTEC and EN.5 in a meta-analysis of trials confirmed that there was no benefit in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.29) and can reliably exclude an absolute benefit of external beam radiotherapy at 5 years of more than 3%. With brachytherapy used in 53% of women in ASTEC/EN.5, the local recurrence rate in the observation group at 5 years was 6.1%. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy cannot be recommended as part of routine treatment for women with intermediate-risk or high-risk early-stage endometrial cancer with the aim of improving survival. The absolute benefit of external beam radiotherapy in preventing isolated local recurrence is small and is not without toxicity.
Comment In: Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):97-919070890
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of high dose rate vaginal brachytherapy in the treatment of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB, IC, and II endometrial carcinoma after surgical staging and complete lymphadenectomy. METHODS: All patients with stage IB, IC, or II adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the endometrium who received postoperative high dose rate vaginal brachytherapy at our institution between June 1, 1989, and June 1, 1999, were eligible. High dose rate vaginal brachytherapy was delivered in three fractions of 700 cGy. Retrospective chart review was performed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four women were identified. Fifty-six percent had stage IB disease, 30% had stage IC disease, and 14% had stage II disease. Approximately one third of patients had high-grade lesions and nearly 40% had deep myometrial invasion. Median follow-up was 65 months (range 6-142 months). To date, 14 patients have had recurrence; 2 at the vaginal apex, 9 at distant sites, 1 at the pelvic sidewall, 1 simultaneously in the pelvis and at a distant site, and 1 at an unknown site. Both patients with vaginal apex recurrences had salvage therapy and are now free of disease. The overall 5-year survival and disease-free survival rates were 87% and 90%, respectively. There were no Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3 or 4 toxicities. High dose rate vaginal brachytherapy was approximately $1,000 less expensive than external-beam whole-pelvic radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant high dose rate vaginal brachytherapy in thoroughly staged patients with intermediate-risk endometrial carcinoma provides excellent overall and disease-free survival with less toxicity and at less cost compared with whole-pelvic radiation.
The fundamental basics of contact radiation therapy (brachytherapy) for gynecological cancer are presented. During brachytherapy the principles of conformal radiotherapy should be implemented, the aim of which is to sum the maximum possible dose of radiation to the tumor and decrease the dose load in adjacent organs and tissues, which allows reducing the frequency of radiation damage at treatment of primary tumors. It is really feasible only on modern technological level, thanks to precision topometry preparation, optimal computer dosimetrical and radiobiological planning of each session and radiotherapy in general. Successful local and long-term results of the contact radiation therapy for cancer of cervix and endometrium are due to optimal anatomical and topometrical ratio of the tumor localization, radioactive sources, and also physical and radiobiological laws of distribution and effects of ionizing radiation, the dose load accounting rules.
OBJECTIVES: Brachytherapy is emerging as a new treatment option for prostate cancer, and is increasingly being used in Europe and North America. METHODS: A systematic review of studies that compared clinical or cost effectiveness of prostate brachytherapy with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation for patients with localised prostate cancer. RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials were identified, but five observational studies with comparable patient groups were included in the review. There were no valid data on overall or disease-free survival. There was no difference in disease-free survival based on PSA as a surrogate measure, or in rates of complications. No cost effectiveness studies were found. Based on Norwegian data, the one-year cost of the three treatment options seem fairly similar, while long term cost data are lacking due to lack of data on long term clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: The evidence on the clinical effectiveness of therapies for localised prostate cancer is scarce, but the outcome appears to be comparable for radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy.
BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy is increasingly used in the treatment of early prostate cancer, but has not been implemented as a treatment option in Norway. Recent advances in imaging techniques and the radiation technology itself has facilitated improvements in and better standardisation of brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An group of expert assisted the Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment (SMM) in a systematic review of the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of prostate brachytherapy. The literature was identified by a defined search strategy, and assessed for relevance and validity. Only controlled or comparative studies were included in the review. RESULTS: There were no randomized controlled trials or large prospective studies. Many of the relevant studies were of poor validity. None of the included studies had sufficient follow-up for overall or disease free survival. There were no differences between brachytherapy, external beam therapy or radical prostatectomy in disease free survival (PSA measures) or in rates of complications. INTERPRETATION: There is a lack of valid data from large prospective studies on the clinical effectiveness of brachytherapy. On the other hand, the clinical effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy is also poorly documented. Results from one large randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy with brachytherapy in the USA will not be available within the next ten years.