4.7 Article

ERECTILE FUNCTION DURABILITY FOLLOWING PERMANENT PROSTATE BRACHYTHERAPY

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.11.058

关键词

Erectile Function; Prostate cancer; Brachytherapy; Proximal penis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate long-term changes in erectile function following prostate brachytherapy. Methods and Materials: This study included 226 patients with prostate cancer and preimplant erectile function assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function-6 (IIEF-6) who underwent brachytherapy in two prospective randomized trials between February 2001 and January 2003. Median follow-up was 6.4 years. Pre- and postbrachytherapy potency was defined as HEF-6 >= 13 without pharmacologic or mechanical support. The relationship among clinical, treatment, and dosimetric parameters and erectile function was examined. Results: The 7-year actuarial rate of potency preservation was 55.6% with median postimplant IIEF of 22 in potent patients. Potent patients were statistically younger (p = 0.014), had a higher preimplant IIEF (p < 0.001), were less likely to be diabetic (p = 0.002), and were more likely to report nocturnal erections (p = 0.008). Potency preservation in men with baseline IIEF scores of 29-30, 24-28, 18-23, and 13-17 were 75.5% vs. 73.6%, 51.7% vs. 44.8%, 48.0% vs. 40.0%, and 23.5% vs. 23.5% in 2004 vs. 2008. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, preimplant IIEF, hypertension, diabetes, prostate size, and brachytherapy dose to proximal penis strongly predicted for potency preservation. Impact of proximal penile dose was most pronounced for men with IIEF of 18-23 and aged 60-69. A significant minority of men who developed postimplant impotence ultimately regained erectile function. Conclusion: Potency preservation and median IIEF scores following brachytherapy are durable. Thoughtful dose sparing of proximal penile structures and early penile rehabilitation may further improve these results. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据