TY - JOUR
T1 - Experiences with a new high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost technique for T3b prostate cancer
AU - Rades, Dirk
AU - Schwarz, Rudolf
AU - Todorovic, Manuel
AU - Thurmann, Horst
AU - Graefen, Markus
AU - Walz, Jochen
AU - Schild, Steven E.
AU - Dunst, Juergen
AU - Alberti, Winfried
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2008 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2007/7
Y1 - 2007/7
N2 - Purpose: Experiences with a new high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost technique in 41 patients with stage T3b prostate cancer are presented. Patients and Methods: The patients received 18 Gy of HDR-BT (9 Gy on days 1 + 8) plus 50.4 Gy of EBRT. 20 patients (group A) had BT applicators placed into the prostate alone resulting in 18 Gy to prostate and 0 Gy (tip) to 12 Gy (base) to seminal vesicles (SV). The cumulative EQD2 (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions, α/β 1.5 Gy) to the SV was 47.5-73.3 Gy. 21 patients (group B) had BT applicators placed into both prostate and SV resulting in 18 Gy to prostate and to > 80% (but not 100%) of the SV (cumulative EQD2 81.5-101.5 Gy). Both groups were compared for acute and late toxicity and for biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS). Results: The 3-year bRFS was 57% for group A and 79% for group B patients (p = 0.29). A grade 3 acute toxicity (CTC 2.0) was not observed. Grade 2 acute toxicity (proctitis, cystitis, skin toxicity) was comparable in both groups. A grade 3 late toxicity did not occur. Impotence rates were 35% in group A and 24% in group B, respectively (p = 0.73). Conclusion: The new HDR-BT technique (group B) was associated only with minor acute and late toxicity and appears to result in better bRFS than the conventional HDR-BT technique (group A). The results must be confirmed in a prospective trial.
AB - Purpose: Experiences with a new high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost technique in 41 patients with stage T3b prostate cancer are presented. Patients and Methods: The patients received 18 Gy of HDR-BT (9 Gy on days 1 + 8) plus 50.4 Gy of EBRT. 20 patients (group A) had BT applicators placed into the prostate alone resulting in 18 Gy to prostate and 0 Gy (tip) to 12 Gy (base) to seminal vesicles (SV). The cumulative EQD2 (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions, α/β 1.5 Gy) to the SV was 47.5-73.3 Gy. 21 patients (group B) had BT applicators placed into both prostate and SV resulting in 18 Gy to prostate and to > 80% (but not 100%) of the SV (cumulative EQD2 81.5-101.5 Gy). Both groups were compared for acute and late toxicity and for biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS). Results: The 3-year bRFS was 57% for group A and 79% for group B patients (p = 0.29). A grade 3 acute toxicity (CTC 2.0) was not observed. Grade 2 acute toxicity (proctitis, cystitis, skin toxicity) was comparable in both groups. A grade 3 late toxicity did not occur. Impotence rates were 35% in group A and 24% in group B, respectively (p = 0.73). Conclusion: The new HDR-BT technique (group B) was associated only with minor acute and late toxicity and appears to result in better bRFS than the conventional HDR-BT technique (group A). The results must be confirmed in a prospective trial.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34447136965&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00066-007-1643-z
DO - 10.1007/s00066-007-1643-z
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 17609874
AN - SCOPUS:34447136965
SN - 0179-7158
VL - 183
SP - 398
EP - 402
JO - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie
JF - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie
IS - 7
ER -