PurposeTo evaluate predictive factors for PSA bounce after 125I permanent seed prostate brachytherapy and identify criteria that distinguish between benign bounces and biochemical relapses.Materials and methodsMen treated with exclusive permanent 125I seed brachytherapy from November 1999, with at least a 36 months follow-up were included. Bounce was defined as an increase ≥ 0.2 ng/ml above the nadir, followed by a spontaneous return to the nadir. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined using the criteria of the Phoenix conference: nadir +2 ng/ml.Results198 men were included. After a median follow-up of 63.9 months, 21 patients experienced a BF, and 35.9% had at least one bounce which occurred after a median period of 17 months after implantation (4-50). Bounce amplitude was 0.6 ng/ml (0.2-5.1), and duration was 13.6 months (4.0-44.9). In 12.5%, bounce magnitude exceeded the threshold defining BF. Age at the time of treatment and high PSA level assessed at 6 weeks were significantly correlated with bounce but not with BF. Bounce patients had a higher BF free survival than the others (100% versus 92%, p = 0,007). In case of PSA increase, PSA doubling time and velocity were not significantly different between bounce and BF patients. Bounces occurred significantly earlier than relapses and than nadir + 0.2 ng/ml in BF patients (17 vs 27.8 months, p < 0.0001).ConclusionHigh PSA value assessed 6 weeks after brachytherapy and young age were significantly associated to a higher risk of bounces but not to BF. Long delays between brachytherapy and PSA increase are more indicative of BF.

For prostate cancer patients, VMAT treatment plans obtained with Monaco and Pinnacle offered clinically acceptable dose distributions. Further investigations are in progress to confirm the performances of the two TPS for irradiating more complex volumes.

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and tumor outcome of re-irradiation with low-dose-rate brachytherapy for macroscopic local recurrences after radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by adjuvant or salvage external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2011 and 2018, five men with histologically proven local failure within the prostate (4) or seminal vesicle bed (1) after RP and adjuvant or salvage EBRT (median dose: 67.5 Gy) underwent a salvage brachytherapy (S-BT). The median delay after EBRT was 86 months (range 75e234). Two patients were castration-resistant at the time of S-BT. The gross tumor volume was defined on a multiparametric MRI and transrectal US imaging. Echoguided transperineal implants of Iodine-125 seeds were optimized with a per-operative dosimetry and delivered with the seed-selectron. RESULTS: A high conformity was achieved with a high dose to the CTV (D 95% O 145 Gy in all but one) and very low dose to the rectum, urethra, and bladder. With a median followup of 21 months, all but one patient experienced nodes and/or bone metastases. Local control was achieved in 3/4 of evaluable patients (local failure distant to the treated volume in one). To date, no Grade 2 or more late toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: For selected patients, focal local recurrence brachytherapy after PR and EBRT appears technically feasible and safe, but the efficacy remains uncertain as the majority of patients quickly relapsed at other sites. Large prospective studies are still required to better select patients who will benefit from this strategy.

Objectives: This prospective, observational, non-randomized multicentric study was conducted to compare efficiency and toxicity using different modalities of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in early-stage peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: From 9 April to 11 December, 106 patients were treated according to the local equipment availability for peripheral NSCLC with SBRT: 68 by linear accelerator equipped for SBRT and 38 by Cyberknife®. Multivariate analysis and propensity score analysis using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) were undertaken in an effort to adjust for potential bias due to non-randomization. Results: 2-year local control rates were 97.0% (95% CI: [90.6%; 99.4%]) with SBRT by Linac vs 100% (95% CI: ([100%; 100%]) with Cyberknife® (p = 0.2839). 2-year PFS and 2-year OS rates were 52.7% (95% CI [39.9%;64.0%]) versus 54.1% (95% CI [36.8; 68.6%]) (p = 0.8582) and 65.1% (95% CI: [51.9%; 75.5%] versus 83.9% (95% CI: [67.5%; 92.4%] (p = 0.0831) using Linac and Cyberknife® respectively. Multivariate regression analysis indicates no significant effect of SBRT treatment type on PFS or OS. Local relapse could not be modeled due to the small number of events (n = 2). Acute and late toxicity rates were not significantly different. After IPTW adjustment, results were unchanged. Conclusions: No difference in efficiency or toxicity was shown after SBRT of peripheral NSCLC treatment using Linac or Cyberknife®. Advances in knowledge: This is the first large prospective non-randomized study focusing on peripheral localized NSCLC comparing SBRT using an appropriately equipped linac with Cyberknife®. No significant difference in efficiency or toxicity was shown in this situation.

No abstract

No abstract