Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Procedural Costs between the Conventional Two-stage Technique and 4D Brachytherapy for Early Prostate Cancer

Langley, Stephen; Uribe, Jennifer; Uribe-Lewis, Santiago; Money-Kyrle, Julian; Perna, Carla; Khaksar, S.; Soares, Ricardo; Laing, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.clon.2017.09.006

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our present findings are consistent with the results from other large series on LDR‐BT . For example, Sylvester et al examined a cohort of 215 patients with stage T1a–T3 prostate cancer treated with 125 I‐BT monotherapy and reported a 15‐year BFFS rate of 80.4% at a median follow‐up of 11.7 years.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: outcomes at >10 years of follow‐up

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: outcomes at >10 years of follow‐up

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our brachytherapy technique has been described elsewhere . The prescription dose for 125 I monotherapy was 145 and 110 Gy as a boost to EBRT.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prescription dose for 125 I monotherapy was 145 and 110 Gy as a boost to EBRT. A two‐stage technique was used up to 2007 after which the 4D Brachytherapy real‐time technique was adopted .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer in men with a high risk of disease relapse

Laing¹,

Uribe²,

Uribe-Lewis³

et al. 2018

BJU International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

LDR-PB is effective at controlling localised prostate cancer in patients with a high risk of disease relapse. As the present study was not randomised, it is not possible to define those patients who need the addition of ADT and/or EBRT. However, the NICE criteria appear suitable to define treatment options where patients could benefit from LDR-PB as monotherapy or combined treatment. This choice should be discussed with the patient taking into account comorbidities and presence of multiple high-risk factors.

show abstract

“…Improved imaging techniques and better sampling of the prostate now make it possible to identify men with low‐volume focal cancer who may benefit from tissue preservation strategies. Whole‐gland (WG) low‐dose‐rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR‐PB) has provided excellent results in the long‐term control of localised prostate cancer, with a favourable side‐effect profile and can be readily adapted to focal target volumes . Focal ablative technologies, such as high‐intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) and cryotherapy, have already been reported in the medical literature .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on these recommendations we designed the Hemi‐Ablative Prostate Brachytherapy (HAPpy) trial to determine the impact of hemi‐gland (HG) focal LDR‐PB. The trial design was also based on our 4D Brachytherapy™ (BXTAccelyon, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, UK) protocol adapted to encompass the HG target volumes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemi‐ablative low‐dose‐rate prostate brachytherapy for unilateral localised prostate cancer

Langley¹,

Uribe²,

Uribe-Lewis³

et al. 2019

BJU International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To report clinical outcomes of the Hemi‐Ablative Prostate Brachytherapy (HAPpy) trial evaluating treatment‐related toxicity and effectiveness of hemi‐gland (HG) low‐dose‐rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy as a focal approach to control unilateral localised prostate cancer. Patients and Methods Single institution phase IIS pilot study of patients treated with focal 4D Brachytherapy™ (BXTAccelyon, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, UK). The primary outcome was patient‐reported toxicity 24 months after implant. The secondary outcome was assessment of disease control. Outcomes in HG patients were compared to whole‐gland (WG) controls obtained from our prospective cohort registry by negative binomial and linear regression models. Results Pre‐treatment demography was similar between the 30 HG patients and 362 WG controls. Post‐implant dosimetry was similar for the prostate gland target volumes and significantly reduced for the urethra and bowel in HG patients relative to WG controls, but this did not translate into a difference in post‐implant mean symptom scores between the two groups. Nevertheless, the change in score from baseline indicated that the impact on pre‐treatment symptom status was less after HG implants. Only HG patients showed a return to baseline urinary scores as early as 12 months. Sexual potency was conserved in 73% and 67% of HG and WG patients, respectively (P = 0.84). Post‐implant prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) kinetics revealed that baseline PSA was reduced at 24 months by 78% and 88% in HG and WG patients, respectively (P < 0.05). Treatment relapse occurred in one (3%) HG patient 55 months after implant and in nine (3%) WG patients at 32–67 months after implant. Conclusion This pilot study suggests that treatment‐related toxicity and biochemical outcomes after HG implants are broadly similar to those observed with WG treatment despite the lower dose delivered by HG implants.

show abstract

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Procedural Costs between the Conventional Two-stage Technique and 4D Brachytherapy for Early Prostate Cancer

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: outcomes at >10 years of follow‐up

Low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: outcomes at >10 years of follow‐up

Low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer in men with a high risk of disease relapse

Hemi‐ablative low‐dose‐rate prostate brachytherapy for unilateral localised prostate cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About