Brachytherapy · 2023
High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy versus as boost in unfavorable intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer: A matched-pair analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Willen Benjamin D, Salari Kamran, Zureick Andrew H, Lang Doyle, Ye Hong, Marvin Kimberly, Nandalur Sirisha R, Krauss Daniel J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: High-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy (HDR-M), or as a boost combined with external beam radiotherapy (HDR-B), are both suitable treatments for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, data directly comparing these two approaches for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients are lacking.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with NCCN-defined UIR prostate cancer treated from 1997 to 2020 were identified in a prospectively maintained, single institution database. HDR-M and HDR-B patients were matched using three factors: age ±3 years; Gleason score (major and minor); and clinical T stage. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA nadir (nPSA) + 2. Available acute and chronic toxicities are additionally reported.
RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were identified (170 receiving HDR-B, 77 receiving HDR-M), ultimately yielding 70 matched pairs (140 patients) for inclusion. The median followup time was 5.2 years for HDR-M compared with 9.3 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). The two cohorts had similar calculated prostate EQD2 (HDR-B 118 Gy vs. HDR-M 115 Gy, p = 0.977). No significant differences in OS, CSS, DM, LRR, or FFBF were identified. HDR-B had an increased rate of any acute grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity and worse acute dysuria and diarrhea. Chronic gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was similar.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective treatment option for selected patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and provides a more favorable gastrointestinal toxicity profile than HDR-B. Prospective trials should be conducted to refine the selection process for this heterogeneous cohort of patients.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with NCCN-defined UIR prostate cancer treated from 1997 to 2020 were identified in a prospectively maintained, single institution database. HDR-M and HDR-B patients were matched using three factors: age ±3 years; Gleason score (major and minor); and clinical T stage. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA nadir (nPSA) + 2. Available acute and chronic toxicities are additionally reported.
RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were identified (170 receiving HDR-B, 77 receiving HDR-M), ultimately yielding 70 matched pairs (140 patients) for inclusion. The median followup time was 5.2 years for HDR-M compared with 9.3 years for HDR-B (p < 0.001). The two cohorts had similar calculated prostate EQD2 (HDR-B 118 Gy vs. HDR-M 115 Gy, p = 0.977). No significant differences in OS, CSS, DM, LRR, or FFBF were identified. HDR-B had an increased rate of any acute grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity and worse acute dysuria and diarrhea. Chronic gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was similar.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that HDR brachytherapy as monotherapy is an effective treatment option for selected patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and provides a more favorable gastrointestinal toxicity profile than HDR-B. Prospective trials should be conducted to refine the selection process for this heterogeneous cohort of patients.