Erectile function after permanent 125I prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Biochemical outcomes and toxicities in young men with prostate cancer after permanent iodine-125 seed implantation: Prospective cohort study in 6662 patients

PURPOSE

We evaluated the effect of age, <60 and ≥60 years, on biochemical outcomes and toxicities in patients with prostate cancer who underwent permanent seed implantation (PI) ± external beam radiation therapy ± hormone therapy in a national Japanese prospective cohort study (J-POPS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The safety and efficacy analyses included 6721 and 6662 patients, respectively. We categorized patients into two age groups: <60 (n = 716) and ≥60 (n = 6,005) years. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to estimate the marginal effect of age on biochemical freedom from failure (bFFF) using a Phoenix definition and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

The median followup period was 60.0 months. Without PSM, men <60 years demonstrated similar 5-year bFFF (96.3%) compared with men ≥60 years (95.6%; p = 0.576); percent positive biopsies, biologically effective dose, Gleason score, risk classification, and supplemental external beam radiation therapy (p <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, 0.008, and <0.001) were significantly associated with bFFF while age was not (p = 0.576). With PSM, bFFF was not significantly different between age groups (p = 0.664); however, men <60 years showed a significantly lower incidence of declining erectile function, grade ≥2 all urinary toxicities, urinary frequency/urgency, and rectal bleeding (p <0.001, 0.024, 0.031, and 0.010) than men ≥60 years.

CONCLUSIONS

After PI, men <60 years achieved a comparable 5-year biochemical control rate and showed a lower incidence of several toxicities compared to men ≥60 years. This suggests that PI should be an excellent treatment option for men <60 years with prostate cancer.

[Toxicity and quality of life comparison of iodine 125 brachytherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy for prostate cancers]

Quality of life is a major issue for good prognostic prostate cancer, for which brachytherapy is one of the reference treatments. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) is a recent alternative however not yet validated as a standard treatment. This review of the literature reports and compares the toxicities and the quality of life, either after exclusive brachytherapy with iodine 125 or after SBRT. The comparison is made with the limitations of the absence of randomized trial comparing the two treatment techniques. Acute toxicity appears to be lower after SBRT compared to brachytherapy (from 10 to 40 % versus 30 to 40 %, respectively). Conversely, acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity (from 0 to 21 % and from 0 to 10 % of grade 2, respectively) appears more frequent with SBRT. Late urinary toxicity seems identical between both techniques (from 20 to 30 % of grade 2), with a possible urinary flare syndrome. Both treatments have an impact on erectile dysfunction, although it is not possible to conclude that a technique is superior because of the limited data on SBRT. SBRT has better bowel and urinary (irritation or obstruction) quality of life scores than brachytherapy; while sexual and urinary incontinence remain the same. The absence of randomized trial comparing SBRT with brachytherapy for prostate cancers does not allow to conclude on the superiority of one technique over another, thus justifying a phase III medicoeconomic evaluation.

Combination of 125I brachytherapy and chemotherapy for unresectable recurrent breast cancer: A retrospective control study

Recurrent breast cancer remains an incurable malignancy and cannot be removed by surgery in the majority of cases. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the combination of I brachytherapy and chemotherapy for the treatment of unresectable recurrent breast cancer. Patients with unresectable recurrent breast cancer treated between January 2011 and December 2014 with a combination of I brachytherapy and capecitabine or gemcitabine were evaluated and outcomes were compared with those of women treated with capecitabine or gemcitabine in conventional dose as a monotherapy. Of 61 patients evaluated, 28 received the combination treatment and 33 received capecitabine or gemcitabine monotherapy. The combination of I brachytherapy and chemotherapy resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival versus capecitabine or gemcitabine monotherapy (median, 17.8 vs 11.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.84; P = 0.013). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher with the combination (82.1%) than with monotherapy (54.5%; P = 0.022), and the rate of pain relief was higher in the combination arm (100% vs 73.6%; P = 0.038). There was no significant improvement for overall survival (median, 30.1 vs 27.2 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.47-1.44; P = 0.496). There were no serious complications detected during the follow-up period, any grade toxicities were comparable between treatment arms. In conclusion, the combination of I brachytherapy and second-line chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone and is an effective and safe therapy for unresectable recurrent breast cancer. However, further investigation and much larger scale randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed.