Ankündigung

Einklappen
Keine Ankündigung bisher.

Heilung durch Brachy plus externe Bestrahlung...

Einklappen
X
 
  • Filter
  • Zeit
  • Anzeigen
Alles löschen
neue Beiträge

    Heilung durch Brachy plus externe Bestrahlung...

    Liebe Mitstreiter,

    eine soeben veröffentlichte Studie des „Seattle Prostate Institute“ (siehe Kurzbericht unten) berichtet von mehr als 200 Männern mit Frühphasen-PK, die sich einer Kombination aus Brachy und externer Bestrahlung unterzogen haben. Nach 15 Jahren gelten 74% dieser Männer als geheilt.

    Ich bin zu wenig Fachmann, als dass ich die Details der Studie kommentieren könnte. Mir fiel aber auf, dass zwar von „early-stage prostate cancer“ die Rede ist, gleichzeitig aber erwähnt wird, dass zwei Drittel der Teilnehmer das Stadium T2b oder T3 und die Gesamtgruppe einen Ausgangs-PSA von immerhin 15 ng/ml hatten. Ich persönlich hätte das nicht unbedingt als „early stage“ eingeordnet, aber das heißt ja nichts. Auch warum die Überschrift von „2 von 3 Patienten“ spricht, während im Text von 74%, also „3 von 4“ die Rede ist, entzieht sich meinem Verständnis.

    Die komplette Veröffentlichung stelle ich in einem separaten Beitrag ins Forum, da das Volumen die zulässige Höchtgrenze überschreitet, wie mir das System soeben mitteilt.

    Herzliche Grüße

    Schorschel


    Brachytherapy After Beam Radiation Cures 2 out of 3 Prostate Cancer Patients Long-Term, Seattle Team Says

    "This study is exciting because it shows that the combination of brachytherapy and external beam therapy are successful long-term at curing men of their prostate cancer," said John E. Sylvester, M.D., lead author.
    January 5, 2007. Seventy-four percent of men treated with a combination of radiation seed implants and external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer are cured of their disease 15 years following their treatment, according to a study released today in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, the official journal of ASTRO.
    This study was conducted by the physicians at the Seattle Prostate Institute. Doctors wanted to look at the combination of seed implants and external beam radiation therapy, two different types of radiation therapy, to prolong the long-term disease cure rates for prostate cancer.
    Over the course of 15 years, doctors followed 232 men with early-stage prostate cancer who received a course of external beam radiation therapy followed by permanent seed implants a few weeks later. Sixty-five percent of these patients had T2b-T3 disease and the entire group had an average pre-treatment PSA of 15 ng/ml.
    Seed implants, also called brachytherapy, are small radioactive pellets, each about the size of a grain of rice. The seeds are inserted into the prostate through small needles during a brief outpatient procedure. External beam radiation therapy involves a series of 25 short daily outpatient treatments, where a radiation oncologist precisely directs high energy radiation beams to kill cancer cells.
    The patients were treated with I 125 or Pd 103 brachytherapy after 45-Gy neoadjuvant EBRT. Fifteen-year bichemical relapse free survival (BRFS) for the entire treatment group was 74%. BRFS using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering risk cohort analysis:
    low patients risk, 88%,
    intermediate risk 80%
    and high risk 53%.
    Grouping by another risk classification system described by ffice:smarttags" />Cancer Dana-Farber Center radiation oncologist Dr. Anthony D'Amico, Ph.D, the BRFS was:

    low risk 85.8%,
    intermediate risk 80.3%
    and high risk 67.8%
    "This study is exciting because it shows that the combination of brachytherapy and external beam therapy are successful long-term at curing men of their prostate cancer," said John E. Sylvester, M.D., lead author of the study and the Director of the Seattle Prostate Institute in Seattle. "This is good news for men with prostate cancer since radiation therapy is less invasive, spares healthy tissue and helps patients return to regular activities sooner than surgery."
    Sources

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Jan 1;67(1):57-64. 15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical Stage T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle experience. Sylvester JE, Grimm PD, Blasko JC, et al. Seattle Prostate Institute, Seattle, WA. Full text free at SCience Direct .
    For more information about prostate cancer treatment options, please visit http://www.rtanswers.org.
















    #2
    Hallo!

    Hier ist die erste Hälfte der Veröffentlichung. Die zweite folgt sogleich.
    Wem's zu lang ist, bitte nicht fluchen, sondern einfach wegklicken...

    Schorschel



    International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
    Volume 67, Issue 1 , 1 January 2007, Pages 57-64
    Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Clinical investigation
    15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical Stage T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Seattle experience
    John E. Sylvester M.D.referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> , , , Peter D. Grimm D.O. , John C. Blasko M.D. , Jeremy Millar MBChB, Peter F. Orio III D.O., Scott Skoglund B.A. , Robert W. Galbreath Ph.D.§, and Gregory Merrick M.D.§

    Ohio University Eastern, St. Clairsville, OH
    Department Radiation Oncology, William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, Melbourne, Australia
    Department Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    Seattle Prostate Institute, Seattle, WA
    §Schiffler Cancer Center and Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling, WV

    Received 26 April 2006; revised 19 July 2006; accepted 28 July 2006. Available online 2 November 2006.


    Purpose: Long-term biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) rates in patients with clinical Stages T1-T3 prostate cancer continue to be scrutinized after treatment with external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy.
    Methods and Materials: We report 15-year BRFS rates on 223 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer that were consecutively treated with I125 or Pd 103 brachytherapy after 45-Gy neoadjuvant EBRT. Multivariate regression analysis was used to create a pretreatment clinical prognostic risk model using a modified American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition (two consecutive serum prostate-specific antigen rises) as the outcome. Gleason scoring was performed by the pathologists at a community hospital. Time to biochemical failure was calculated and compared by using Kaplan-Meier plots.
    Results: Fifteen-year BRFS for the entire treatment group was 74%. BRFS using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering risk cohort analysis (95% confidence interval): low risk, 88%, intermediate risk 80%, and high risk 53%. Grouping by the risk classification described by D’Amico, the BRFS was: low risk 85.8%, intermediate risk 80.3%, and high risk 67.8% (p = 0.002).
    Conclusions: I125 or Pd103 brachytherapy combined with supplemental EBRT results in excellent 15-year biochemical control. Different risk group classification schemes lead to different BRFS results in the high-risk group cohorts.
    Keywords: Brachytherapy; Prostate cancer; Long-term results


    Article Outline

    Introduction
    Methods and materials
    Risk classification
    Analytical methods
    Treatment
    Results
    Discussion
    Conclusion
    Acknowledgements
    References



    Introduction

    Prostate brachytherapy continues to be a first-line treatment option for men with clinical stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Technical advances are regularly reported, including the use of transrectal ultrasound guidance for preplanned or intraoperatively planned implants (1, 2 and 3). Postimplant dosimetry has led to improved prostate coverage and a better understanding of the tolerances of adjacent critical structures (4). Data from the retropubic era showed that those patients with B1 (T2a) disease who received “adequate” implant dosimetry (based on orthogonal X-rays) achieved disease control rates similar to radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) patients from that era (5). Improved implant quality has been demonstrated to result in better biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) outcomes in several modern studies (6, 7 and 8).
    Today’s improved patient selection and improved implant quality has resulted in multiple brachytherapy reports demonstrating 5–10 year BRFS rates are equivalent to the best published radical prostatectomy and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy results (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). We report the Seattle 15-year results of transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy combined with moderate-dose neoadjuvant EBRT in a group of consecutively treated and prospectively followed patients with clinical T1-T3 prostate cancer.
    Methods and materials

    This is a prospective cohort study. Between January 1987 and December 1993, 232 patients presenting with clinically localized prostate cancer were consecutively treated with I125/Pd103 brachytherapy with neoadjuvant EBRT.
    Seven patients did not meet the initial cohort criteria for inclusion because of androgen ablation therapy for downsizing purposes and 1 patient had inadequate follow-up, reducing the analytic cohort to 223. Median follow-up time was 9.43 years ranging from 0.62 to 17.07 years. Patients were evaluated with physical examinations, digital rectal examination (DRE), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) every 3–6 months the first 2 years after implant, every 6 months the next 3 years, then yearly thereafter. Radiographic examinations were performed if clinically indicated. Extended follow-up was conducted by continued patient contact, other physician contact and Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (i.e., SEER) registry follow-up. Patient permission for follow-up for outcomes was consented at the time of initial diagnosis and treatment. Pathology reports of those patients with intermediate risk disease were analyzed to determine the percentage of positive biopsy cores. Forty-one intermediate-risk patients had at least four ultrasound-guided needle biopsies and a description of the number of biopsy cores out of the total number of cores taken, allowing us to determine the percent of positive biopsy cores in those patients. Twenty-six of these 41 patients had ≥50% of their biopsy cores positive (63.4%).
    All patients were initially evaluated with a medical history and physical, serum PSA, and where clinically indicated radiographic studies such as bone scan and computed tomography scan. The 1992 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system was used to assign clinical stage. T stage was assigned by DRE results. Pathologic biopsies were reviewed and assigned Gleason scores, primarily by the pathology staff at a local community hospital.
    Risk classification

    The D’Amico method defines risk cohorts as low risk: PSA ≤10.0 ng/mL and Gleason score 2–6 and stage T1c-T2a, intermediate risk: PSA 10.1–20 ng/mL or Gleason 7 or stage T2b, and high risk: PSA >20.0 ng/mL or Gleason 8-10 or Stage T2c modified to also include patients with two or more of the intermediate-risk features (19).
    The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk groupings were initially described by Zelefsky and were subsequently adopted by Seattle and others (20). The risk groups are defined as low risk: initial serum PSA ≤10.0 ng/mL, Gleason summary score 2–6, and clinical stage by DRE 10.0 ng/mL or Gleason score >6, or >T2b stage disease (one unfavorable risk factor), and high-risk: two or three of the preceding unfavorable risk factors. BRFS was quantified using a modified American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus definition of biochemical failure after radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Instead of requiring three consecutive PSA rises for assignment of biochemical failure, two serum PSA rises were used; this is more sensitive at picking out biochemical failures than the traditional three-rise ASTRO definition (22).
    Analytical methods

    For Kaplan-Meier plots and survival analyses, patients were assigned a censor date as date of biochemical failure as measured by PSA, local or distant failure by observation of disease recurrence, last known date of “alive” vital status, or date of death if deceased. Biochemical PSA progression or failure was defined as two consecutive rises in serum PSA at time of last follow-up. Failure is also defined at time of intervention with androgen ablation. Patients that exhibit a temporary rise in PSA, followed by a decline without clinical therapeutic intervention (“PSA bounce”) are noted as biochemical successes.
    Serum PSA levels after documented failures are not reported to avoid the influence of androgen ablation or other therapeutic interventions that would alter the patient’s PSA profile. Thus the PSA level at the time of documented biochemical failure is the last reported PSA for that patient. Clinical failure was defined as local if the follow-up DRE or prostate biopsy remained positive. Distant failure was noted if radiographically apparent disease developed.
    The log–rank test was used to test for statistically significant differences between risk groups for BRFS. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot cumulative survival functions by risk groups.
    Differences in clinical variables between isotopes were made using independent sample t tests (continuous variables) and chi-square tests (categorical variables). Univariate and multivariate (forward-progression) Cox regression analysis was used to determine if any of the clinical variables predicted for failure. Values of p ≤ 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 13.0 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).
    Treatment

    The Seattle technique has been reported in previous articles (1, 2 and 3). Briefly, when a preplanning transrectal ultrasound volume study is performed, target volumes outlined by the radiation oncologist are larger than the prostate volume, especially laterally. This usually includes the proximal 1 cm of the seminal vesicles. The minimum peripheral dose includes this outlined volume and is derived from standard radiation planning software. The dose for Pd103 boost was 90 Gy ( 100 Gy NIST 99). The I125 boost dose was 120 Gy (108 Gy TG-43). Early in the study period, a uniform loading scheme was used; in 1992, the planning switched to a modified uniform peripheral loading format to limit the dose to the urethra to less than 150% of the prescription dose. Postimplant quality assurance was by the use of orthogonal films between 1987 and 1991. In 1992, postimplant computed tomography scan dosimetry was performed. These scans printed out isodose curves for a qualitative evaluation (good, fair, or poor), but dose–volume histogram analysis was not available at the time.
    The EBRT portion of therapy was completed a median of 4 weeks before the implant date. Patients received 45 Gy by way of a four-field box technique with customized Cerrobend blocks via 6–15 MV X-rays. Field sizes varied from patient to patient; most received a “limited pelvic” field. Patients did not undergo lymph node dissections or androgen ablation therapy. Any patient receiving androgen ablation therapy at any time after treatment, for any reason (e.g., benign PSA bounce), for any duration, is counted as a biochemical failure.
    Results

    The clinical status at presentation is outlined in Table 1. The mean pretreatment PSA was 15.25 ng/mL, 63.3% of patients presented with T2b-T3 disease by DRE, and 35% had Gleason score 7-10. There were seven local failures (3.1%) based on a positive biopsy, or positive DRE, or androgen ablation therapy for suspected local recurrence.
    Table 1.
    External beam radiation therapy + seed implant cohort (n = 223) characteristics

    Variable


    Mean (Range)



    Age (years)

    69.2 (49–88)



    Preimplant PSA

    15.3 (0.4–138.0)





    Count (%)



    Gleason score





    2–6


    145 (65.0)


    7


    55 (24.7)


    8–10


    23 (10.3)


    Stage





    T1b


    9 (4.0)


    T1c


    18 (8.1)


    T2a


    55 (24.7)


    T2b


    84 (37.7)


    T2c


    49 (22.0)


    T3


    8 (3.5)


    iPSA





    0–4 ng/mL


    36 (16.1)


    4.1–10 ng/mL


    71 (31.8)


    10.1–20.0 ng/mL


    68 (30.5)


    >20.0 ng/mL


    46 (20.6)


    MSKCC risk group





    Low


    61 (27.4)


    Intermediate


    91 (40.8)


    High


    71 (31.8)


    D’Amico risk groups





    Low


    59 (26.5)


    Intermediate


    50 (22.4)


    High


    114 (51.1)




    Abbreviations: PSA = prostate-specific antigen; iPSA = initial PSA; MSKCC = Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
    The iPSA data for 2 (0.9%) patients was not available.

    Kommentar


      #3
      [quote=Schorschel;6887]Hallo!

      ... und hier ist die zweite Hälfte der Veröffentlichung. Ich musste einige Grafiken und Tabellen weglassen, weil's immer noch dramatisch zu lang war.

      Also, wie gesagt, bitte nicht fluchen, sondern ggf. einfach wegklicken...

      Schorschel



      There were no treatment related deaths, deep venous thromboses, cardiopulmonary events, serious bleeding, sepsis, cerebral vascular events, or other serious perioperative complications. fficeffice" />
      Discussion

      We report the 15-year BRFS results of 223 consecutively treated clinical T1-T3 prostate cancer patients. Patients were treated with 45 Gy EBRT followed a few weeks later by a transperineal template-guided transrectal ultrasound-guided permanent interstitial implant with I125 or Pd103 radioactive seeds. None of these patients received hormonal therapy. The neoadjuvant EBRT was given because the authors felt these patients were at significant risk for extracapsular or seminal vesicle disease based on pretreatment clinical factors (GS, iPSA, stage, perineural invasion, and the number of positive biopsy cores).
      Gleason score remains one of the most important predictors of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer, with high Gleason score correlating with a greater risk of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy (RP), EBRT, and brachytherapy. The Gleason scores in this report were assigned by local community hospital pathologists. It has been well established that community hospital pathologists in the late 1980s and early 1990s tended to undergrade biopsy Gleason scores. Stenberg and colleagues reported significant undergrading of biopsy specimens by nonacademic-based pathologists. They reported that 22.3% of all outside biopsy specimens submitted for review at Johns Hopkins University were assigned Gleason Score 2-4 histology, with only 1.2% of the biopsies maintaining this classification after internal review (23). Epstein reported that no patient should be assigned Gleason score 2-4 on an ultrasound-guided needle biopsy (24). In addition, to assess whether the ffice:smarttags" />Hopkins Johns University grading of outside pathology specimens was biased, Steinberg correlated biopsy Gleason score to pathologic stage. Fifty-five percent of needle biopsies grade by outside pathologists as Gleason score 2-4 were not organ confined at RP, whereas all Johns Hopkins University–graded Gleason score 2-4 cases were organ confined. Thus the Gleason scores reported in this group of patients are most likely under-graded.
      The 10-year EBRT plus brachytherapy outcomes we previously reported revealed BRFS of 90%, 84%, and 48% for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups respectively (D’Amico risk grouping) (21). Our update of this data set shows that the low- and intermediate-risk patients continue to experience high disease-free survival rates. There was actually an improvement in the BRFS in the high-risk treatment cohort. This improvement was due to more extended and complete follow-up. Many of the high-risk patients that are currently without evidence of biochemical failure had relatively short follow-up in the previous article, thus carried less statistical weight in the Kaplan-Meier curves than those with longer follow-up at the time of that data analysis. Multiple studies have shown a year of treatment effect where more recently treated patients have significantly better BRFS than patients treated at the same institution just a few years earlier (25, 26 and 27). These high-risk biochemical no evidence of disease patients now have significantly longer follow-up and thus have favorably influenced the Kaplan-Meier curves. A similar finding was also noted by Han et al.,when reporting an update of the Johns Hopkins University radical prostatectomy outcomes, longer follow-up improved the 10 year BFRS from 68% to 74% (28 and 29).
      The 80% 15-year BRFS in the intermediate-risk patients is encouraging considering that the majority of these intermediate-risk patients were “unfavorable” intermediate-risk patients because 63.4% of them had ≥50% of their biopsy needle cores positive. Surgical studies reveal the number of positive biopsies to be an independent risk factor predicting poor outcomes (19). In the radical prostatectomy series reported by D’Amico, intermediate-risk patients at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Brigham and Women’s Hospital with 34–50% of their needle biopsy specimens positive experienced referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600">50% 5-year BRFS. They noted a <20% 5-year BRFS in the intermediate-risk patients who had >50% of the needle biopsy cores positive. Gancarczyk and colleagues noted in a study of 1,510 men who underwent RP and were stratified by the percent positive biopsy cores that an increase in percent positive biopsy cores correlated with a substantial increase in extracapsular extension, but only minimal increase in seminal vesicle or pelvic lymph node involvement (30). In a brachytherapy report by Merrick et al., a significant but slight difference in BRFS was noted at 8 years for the entire treatment cohort, but not when broken down by risk group (31). Brachytherapy may be less sensitive to extracapsular extension in comparison to RP because of its ability to obtain wider margins via either the use of supplemental external beam or carefully placed extracapsular seeds (32).
      Most brachytherapists use monotherapy for low-risk patients. The low-risk patients in this report received combination EBRT plus brachytherapy because of the authors’ perception that they may be higher risk for relapse from a high number of positive biopsies and the virtual total lack of outcomes data with ultrasound-guided brachytherapy at the time we treated these patients. Currently, we rarely use combination brachytherapy plus EBRT in low-risk patients. The BRFS outcomes of the intermediate-risk patients in this series are almost as favorable as the low-risk patients. There is no statistically significant difference in the BRFS outcomes between low- and intermediate-risk patients in this series. The lack of difference in BRFS between low-risk and intermediate-risk patients treated with brachytherapy was also seen in the recent publication by Merrick (33). This may indicate that most intermediate-risk patients have a low risk of micrometastatic disease. The higher incidence of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in intermediate-risk patients is well treated by EBRT plus brachytherapy. One could question whether brachytherapy alone with 5-mm margins would do as well as EBRT plus brachytherapy. Hopefully, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0203 will accrue well and answer that question.
      The high-risk patients in this series did well considering the era they were treated in. Whether or not the addition of androgen ablation therapy would have further improved the results is unknown. We are participating (with Merrick and Wallner) in a multi-institutional randomized trial in which high-risk patients are treated with whole pelvic EBRT plus a Pd103 boost and are randomized to no androgen ablation or to receive a 9-month course of neoadjuvant concurrent-adjuvant androgen ablation therapy in an attempt to answer that question.
      Other long-term brachytherapy outcomes typically go out to 10-year data points. Grimm reported the 10-year BRFS of I125 monotherapy patients treated between 1988 and 1990 (8). The 10-year BRFS in this group was 87%, the mean follow-up was 94.5 months, and there was a 3% local failure rate. In all Seattle Prostate Institute reports, we use a two-rise definition for failure rather than a three-rise ASTRO definition because a two-rise definition is significantly more sensitive at picking up biochemical failures (22). Stock and Stone have recently reported the 10-year Mt. Sinai experience on a group of patients treated in the early late 1990s with brachytherapy ± EBRT (34). Patients had cT1-T2 disease a minimum follow-up of 4 years and received I125 with or without 6 months of androgen ablation. The overall 10-year BRFS was 78%, but the BRFS was 90% and local control was 95.2% in those patients that received high-quality implants, defined as a D90 of more than 140 Gy.
      Sharkey recently published his group’s long-term outcomes of Pd103 ± EBRT (35). The long-term BRFS for the brachytherapy patients were 89%, 89%, and 88%, for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. For the radical prostatectomy patients in his series, the BRFS was 94%, 58%, and 43% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Critz reported 10-year BRFS in low-, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients of 93%, 80%, and 61% respectively in a cohort of 1,469 men treated with 125I + EBRT and median follow-up of 6 years (36). Thus multiple brachytherapy centers have reported excellent 10-year BRFS with prostate brachytherapy ± EBRT proving that long-term brachytherapy outcomes are reproducible. Now the data at 15 years demonstrate that these outcomes continue to hold up long term.
      Long-term surgical outcomes from centers of excellence do not hold up better than these brachytherapy results (Table 4) (4). Roehl reported on the 10-year BRFS results achieved by Catalona at Washington University (25). The results were not segregated by risk group analysis, but the mean iPSA, biopsy Gleason scores, and clinical T stages are more favorable than this brachytherapy series. They noted a 10-year BRFS of 68% with a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.
      Table 4.
      Long-term outcomes


      SPI-brachytherapy

      JHH-RP

      WU-RP



      (n = 223)

      (n = 2,404)

      (n = 3,478)


      iPSA

      0–4

      16.1%

      29%

      19%

      4.1–10

      31.8%

      50%

      63%

      10.1–20

      30.5%

      17%

      20%

      >20

      20.6%

      5%

      Above



      Clinical

      Clinical

      Path. GS

      Gleason score

      2–6

      65%

      62%

      63%

      7

      24.7%

      31%

      30%

      8–10

      10.3%

      7%

      7%


      Clinical

      Clinical

      Clinical


      Stage

      T1-T2a

      36.8%

      78%

      71%

      T2b-T2c

      59.7%

      20%

      28%

      T3

      3.5%

      2%

      1%

      Relapse-free survival
      15 years (74%)

      15 years (66%)

      10 years (68%)


      Medium follow-up (range)
      9.4 (1–17) years

      6.3 (1–17) years

      5.4 (0–19.4) years


      Abbreviations: SPI = Seattle Prostate Institute; JHH-RP = Johns Hopkins Hospital-radical prostatectomy; WU-RP = Washington University-radical prostatectomy; iPSA = initial prostate-specific antigen.

      The 15-year BRFS results of RP from Johns Hopkins Hospital were reported by Han and colleagues (37). The mean follow-up was 5.9 years. The pretreatment patient characteristics were more favorable than this Seattle brachytherapy series, and they excluded the more unfavorable patients from their analysis, specifically those found to have positive lymph nodes and patients that received immediate postoperative radiation or hormonal therapy for poor prognostic features found on final postoperative pathology. They reported a 66% 15-year freedom from relapse overall.
      We expect improved BRFS outcomes in modern patients treated with modern brachytherapy equipment and techniques. Indeed, a recently reported modern brachytherapy series from Merrick and colleagues, using the Seattle preplan technique, reported an 8-year BRFS of 98%, 98%, and 88% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients treated with I125/Pd103 brachytherapy ± EBRT (33).
      Conclusion

      The 15-year BRFS outcomes with neoadjuvant EBRT and I125/Pd103 boost continue to show excellent long-term disease control rates despite a relatively unfavorable patient population, older era of treatment, and less sophisticated EBRT and brachytherapy techniques than are available.

      Conflict of interest: none.
      Reprint requests to: John E. Sylvester, M.D., Seattle Prostate Institute, 1101 Madison Street, Seattle, WA 98104. Tel: (206) 215-2480; Fax: (206) 215-2481

      Kommentar

      Lädt...
      X