4.2 Article

High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as monotherapy in one fraction of 20.5 Gy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: Toxicity and 6-year biochemical results

期刊

BRACHYTHERAPY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 845-851

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2018.06.002

关键词

Brachytherapy; High dose rate; Prostate cancer; Monotherapy; Single fraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate acute and late genitourinary toxicity, the gastrointestinal toxicity, and the long-term biochemical control after high-dose-rate (HDR) monotherapy in one fraction (20.5 Gy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2011 and October 2014, 60 consecutive patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated; the median followup was 51 months (range 30-79). All patients received one implant and one fraction of 20.5 Gy HDR real-time U/S planned with transperineal hyaluronic acid injection into the perirectal. Toxicity was reported according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Event, Version 4.0 (CTAE v4.03) by the National Cancer Institute. Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix definition. RESULTS: Our experience in a single fraction of 20.5 Gy HDR brachytherapy is well-tolerated. No intraoperative or perioperative complications occurred. Grade 1 acute genitourinary toxicity occurred in 36% of patients, Grade 2 or more was not observed, only 1 patient requiring the use of a catheter for 7 days in the immediate postoperative period. No gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. No chronic toxicity has been observed after treatment. Morbidity is practically the same as that obtained with 19 Gy in our previously published article but the actuarial biochemical control was better, 82% (+/- 3%) at 6 years. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of 20.5 Gy resulted in a low genitourinary morbidity and no gastrointestinal toxicity and achieves good levels of biochemical disease control. (C) 2018 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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