4.3 Article

Long term outcome and side effects in patients receiving low-dose l125 brachytherapy: a retrospective analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 906-917

出版社

BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0542

关键词

Brachytherapy; Survival; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To retrospectively evaluate the disease free survival (DFS), disease specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS) and side effects in patients who received low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy with I125 stranded seeds. Materials and methods: Between july 2003 and august 2012, 274 patients with organ confined prostate cancer were treated with permanent I125 brachytherapy. The median follow-up, age and pretreatment prostate specific antigen (iPSA) was 84 months (12120), 67 years (50-83) and 7.8 ng/mL (1.14-38), respectively. Median Gleason score was 6 (3-9). 219 patients (80%) had stage cT1c, 42 patients (15.3%) had stage cT2a, 3 (1.1%) had stage cT2b and 3 (1.1%) had stage cT2c. The median D90 was 154.3 Gy (102.7-190.2). Results: DSS was 98.5%. OS was 93.5%. 13 patients (4.7%) developed systemic disease, 7 patients (2.55%) had local progression. In 139 low risk patients, the 5 year biochemical freedom from failure rate (BFFF) was 85% and 9 patients (6.4%) developed clinical progression. In the intermediate risk group, the 5 year BFFF rate was 70% and 5 patients (7.1%) developed clinical progression. Median nPSA in patients with biochemical relapse was 1.58 ng/mL (0.21 - 10.46), median nPSA in patients in remission was 0.51 ng/mL (0.01 - 8.5). Patients attaining a low PSA nadir had a significant higher BFFF (p<0.05). Median D90 in patients with biochemical relapse was 87.2 Gy (51 - 143,1). Patients receiving a high D90 had a significant higher BFFF (p<0.05). Conclusion: In a well selected patient population, LDR brachytherapy offers excellent outcomes. Reaching a low PSA nadir and attaining high D90 values are significant predictors for a higher DFS.

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

4.3
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