No abstract

No abstract

Our aim was to document the technical and clinical course of prostate brachytherapy patients with radiographic evidence of median lobe hyperplasia (MLH). Eight patients with MLH were identified during our routine brachytherapy practice, representing 9% of the 87 brachytherapy patients treated during a 6‐month period. No effort was made to avoid brachytherapy in patients noted to have MLH on diagnostic work‐up. Cystoscopic evaluation was not routinely performed. Postimplant axial computed tomographic (CT) images of the prostate were obtained at 0.5 cm intervals. Preimplant urinary obstructive symptoms were quantified by the criteria of the American Urologic Association (AUA). Each patient was contacted during the writing of this report to update postimplant morbidity information. There was no apparent association between the degree of MLH and preimplant prostate volume or AUA score. Intraoperatively, we were able to visualize MLH by transrectal ultrasound and did not notice any particular difficulty placing sources in the MLH tissue or migration of sources out of the tissue. The prescription isodose covered from 81% to 99% of the postimplant CT‐defined target volume, achieving adequate dose to the median lobe tissue in all patients. Two of the eight patients developed acute, postimplant urinary retention. The first patient required intermittent self‐catheterization for 3 months and then resumed spontaneous urination. MLH does not appear to be a strong contraindication to prostate brachytherapy, and prophylactic resection of hypertrophic tissue in such patients is probably not warranted. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 152–156 (2000). © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

No abstract

Our aim was to document the technical and clinical course of prostate brachytherapy patients with radiographic evidence of median lobe hyperplasia (MLH). Eight patients with MLH were identified during our routine brachytherapy practice, representing 9% of the 87 brachytherapy patients treated during a 6-month period. No effort was made to avoid brachytherapy in patients noted to have MLH on diagnostic work-up. Cystoscopic evaluation was not routinely performed. Postimplant axial computed tomographic (CT) images of the prostate were obtained at 0.5 cm intervals. Preimplant urinary obstructive symptoms were quantified by the criteria of the American Urologic Association (AUA). Each patient was contacted during the writing of this report to update postimplant morbidity information. There was no apparent association between the degree of MLH and preimplant prostate volume or AUA score. Intraoperatively, we were able to visualize MLH by transrectal ultrasound and did not notice any particular difficulty placing sources in the MLH tissue or migration of sources out of the tissue. The prescription isodose covered from 81% to 99% of the postimplant CT-defined target volume, achieving adequate dose to the median lobe tissue in all patients. Two of the eight patients developed acute, postimplant urinary retention. The first patient required intermittent self-catheterization for 3 months and then resumed spontaneous urination. MLH does not appear to be a strong contraindication to prostate brachytherapy, and prophylactic resection of hypertrophic tissue in such patients is probably not warranted. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 152-156 (2000).