Preexisting histologic evidence of prostatitis is unrelated to postimplant urinary morbidity

Prostate cancer brachytherapy: SFRO guidelines 2021

Prostate brachytherapy techniques are described, concerning both permanent seed implant and high dose rate brachytherapy. The following guidelines are presented: brachytherapy indications, implant procedure for permanent low dose rate implants and high dose rate with source projector, as well as dose and dose-constraints objectives, immediate postoperative management, post-treatment evaluation, and long-term follow-up.

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Factors affecting patient selection for prostate brachytherapy: what nurses should know

Prostate brachytherapy is a proven treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer; however, many clinicians have multiple misconceptions regarding patient selection criteria. Although most patients are candidates for the procedure, contraindications do exist. This article examines criteria for patient selection and the need for adjuvant therapies, proposes management philosophies, and discusses the impact of each on treatment decisions. Nurses' role in the decision-making process and how they can facilitate patients and families in making informed choices also are discussed. Clinical studies seek to further define patient selection criteria and examine optimal choices for adjuvant treatment and isotope preference. Expanding the knowledge base of nurses helps enhance patient care.

Myths and fallacies in permanent prostate brachytherapy

Because there are competing modalities to treat early-stage prostate cancer, the constraints or deficiencies of one modality may be erroneously applied to others. Some valid concerns arising from surgery and external beam therapy, which have been falsely transferred to brachytherapy, are constraints based on patient age, clinical and pathological parameters, patient weight, and size of prostate. Although the constraints have a valid basis in one modality, knowledge of the origin and mechanism of the constraint has provided a means to circumvent or overcome it in brachytherapy. Failures as measured by biochemical no-evidence of disease (bNED) survival may be attributed to extracapsular disease extension. Such extension often expresses itself in surrogate parameters such as a high percentage of positive biopsies, perineural invasion, or the dominant pattern in Gleason score histology. Failures due to such factors may be prevented by implanting with consistent extracapsular dosimetric margins. Some presumed limitations on prostate brachytherapy originated from data on patients implanted in the first few years the procedure was being developed. Most of the urinary morbidity and a significant part of the decrease in sexual function observed may be avoided by controlling the dosimetry along the prostatic and membranous urethra and at the penile bulb.