4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

10-YEAR EXPERIENCE WITH I-125 PROSTATE BRACHYTHERAPY AT THE PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL: RESULTS FOR 1,100 PATIENTS

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.038

关键词

Prostate neoplasms; Brachytherapy; Prostate-specific antigen; Radiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report outcomes for 1,111 men treated with iodine-125 brachytherapy (BT) at a single institution. Methods and Materials: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. (C) 2011 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