Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of permanent (125)I seeds implants with two different techniques in 500 cases of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To perform a comparative study of 500 consecutive (125)I seeds implants for intracapsular prostate carcinoma with two techniques differing in terms of both strand implantation and planning.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2002 to 2007 we performed 250 implants with fixed stranded seeds (RapidStrand™) and a preplanning system and from 2007 to 2010, 250 with real-time and ProLink™ system. Mean age was 68 and 66, respectively, median PSA (prostate-specific antigen) 7.3 and 7.2, stage T1-T2a in 98% and 94%, and Gleason ≤ 6 in 96% and 86%. Low risk cases were 81% and 71%. The prescribed dose was 145 Gy to the prostate volume, or 108 Gy plus EBRT 46 Gy in some intermediate risk cases. Hormonal treatment was given to 42% and 28%.

RESULTS: Median follow-up was 48 and 47 months, respectively, 14 patients in the first group and 7 patients in the second developed biochemical failure (BF). Actuarial biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) at 5 years increased from 90.2% to 97.2% (low risk from 91.3% to 97.2%, intermediate risk from 84.2% to 97.1%). Biochemical failure was independent of hormone treatment. Rectal complications were G1-2 in 1.2% and 5.2%, respectively. A urinary catheter was necessary in 6.9% and 9.6%, and urethral resection in 1.9% and 4.4%. Genitourinary toxicity was G1-2 in 4.6% and 12%, G3-4 in 1.9% and 4.8%. An assessment of mean D90 in a sample of patients showed that the dosimetry in postoperative planning based on CT improved from a mean D90 of 143 Gy to 157 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of patients with low risk prostate carcinoma treated with (125)I seed is very good with low complications rate. The real-time approach in our hands achieved a more precise seed implantation, better dosimetry, and a statistically non-significant better biochemical control. We have made this our standard technique.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app