Comparison of preplanning and intraoperative planning for I-125 prostate brachytherapy

Kayo Yoshida, Toshio Ohashi, Atsunori Yorozu, Kazuhito Toya, Toru Nishiyama, Shiro Saito, Takashi Hanada, Yutaka Shiraishi, Naoyuki Shigematsu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare two widely used permanent prostate brachytherapy techniques, preplanning and intraoperative planning, based on postimplant dosimetry, toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Methods: Between 2003 and 2006, 665 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with permanent interstitial implantation. The first 227 consecutive men were treated with the preplanning technique, followed by 438 men treated with the intraoperative technique. Late toxicity was scored by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen increase of more than 2 ng/ml above the nadir value excluding a benign bounce. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the variables associated with biochemical failure-free survival. Results: Postimplant target coverage was similar in the two groups, with a small difference in risk organ doses. Mean V100 was 96.3 vs. 96.7% (P = 0.205), D90 was 119.6 vs. 119.4% (P = 0.884), urethral D10 was 157.5 vs. 146.1% (P = 0.010), rectal V100 was 0.57 vs. 0.43 cc (P = 0.002) in the preplanning and intraoperative planning groups, respectively. Acute and late Grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were , <1% for both methods. The 5-year biochemical failure-free survival rate was 95.4% for the preplanning and 94.0% for the intraoperative planning group (P = 0.776). Multivariate analysis revealed Gleason score, biopsy positive rate and V100 to be predictors of biochemical failure-free survival, while the planning technique was not significant. Conclusion: This large-scale analysis of high-quality implants revealed similar postimplant dosimetry, toxicity profiles and biochemical failure-free survival for the preplanning and intraoperative planning methods.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)383-389
Number of pages7
JournalJapanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
Volume43
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Apr

Fingerprint

Brachytherapy
Prostate
Survival
Multivariate Analysis
Planning Techniques
Neoplasm Grading
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Terminology
Prostatic Neoplasms
Survival Rate
Biopsy

Keywords

  • Brachytherapy
  • Intraoperative planning
  • Preplanning
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparison of preplanning and intraoperative planning for I-125 prostate brachytherapy. / Yoshida, Kayo; Ohashi, Toshio; Yorozu, Atsunori; Toya, Kazuhito; Nishiyama, Toru; Saito, Shiro; Hanada, Takashi; Shiraishi, Yutaka; Shigematsu, Naoyuki.

In: Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 43, No. 4, 04.2013, p. 383-389.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6feb973d2f2f458ea1af52870121c0db,
title = "Comparison of preplanning and intraoperative planning for I-125 prostate brachytherapy",
abstract = "Objective: To compare two widely used permanent prostate brachytherapy techniques, preplanning and intraoperative planning, based on postimplant dosimetry, toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Methods: Between 2003 and 2006, 665 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with permanent interstitial implantation. The first 227 consecutive men were treated with the preplanning technique, followed by 438 men treated with the intraoperative technique. Late toxicity was scored by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen increase of more than 2 ng/ml above the nadir value excluding a benign bounce. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the variables associated with biochemical failure-free survival. Results: Postimplant target coverage was similar in the two groups, with a small difference in risk organ doses. Mean V100 was 96.3 vs. 96.7{\%} (P = 0.205), D90 was 119.6 vs. 119.4{\%} (P = 0.884), urethral D10 was 157.5 vs. 146.1{\%} (P = 0.010), rectal V100 was 0.57 vs. 0.43 cc (P = 0.002) in the preplanning and intraoperative planning groups, respectively. Acute and late Grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were , <1{\%} for both methods. The 5-year biochemical failure-free survival rate was 95.4{\%} for the preplanning and 94.0{\%} for the intraoperative planning group (P = 0.776). Multivariate analysis revealed Gleason score, biopsy positive rate and V100 to be predictors of biochemical failure-free survival, while the planning technique was not significant. Conclusion: This large-scale analysis of high-quality implants revealed similar postimplant dosimetry, toxicity profiles and biochemical failure-free survival for the preplanning and intraoperative planning methods.",
keywords = "Brachytherapy, Intraoperative planning, Preplanning, Prostate cancer",
author = "Kayo Yoshida and Toshio Ohashi and Atsunori Yorozu and Kazuhito Toya and Toru Nishiyama and Shiro Saito and Takashi Hanada and Yutaka Shiraishi and Naoyuki Shigematsu",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1093/jjco/hys240",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "383--389",
journal = "Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0368-2811",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of preplanning and intraoperative planning for I-125 prostate brachytherapy

AU - Yoshida, Kayo

AU - Ohashi, Toshio

AU - Yorozu, Atsunori

AU - Toya, Kazuhito

AU - Nishiyama, Toru

AU - Saito, Shiro

AU - Hanada, Takashi

AU - Shiraishi, Yutaka

AU - Shigematsu, Naoyuki

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - Objective: To compare two widely used permanent prostate brachytherapy techniques, preplanning and intraoperative planning, based on postimplant dosimetry, toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Methods: Between 2003 and 2006, 665 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with permanent interstitial implantation. The first 227 consecutive men were treated with the preplanning technique, followed by 438 men treated with the intraoperative technique. Late toxicity was scored by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen increase of more than 2 ng/ml above the nadir value excluding a benign bounce. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the variables associated with biochemical failure-free survival. Results: Postimplant target coverage was similar in the two groups, with a small difference in risk organ doses. Mean V100 was 96.3 vs. 96.7% (P = 0.205), D90 was 119.6 vs. 119.4% (P = 0.884), urethral D10 was 157.5 vs. 146.1% (P = 0.010), rectal V100 was 0.57 vs. 0.43 cc (P = 0.002) in the preplanning and intraoperative planning groups, respectively. Acute and late Grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were , <1% for both methods. The 5-year biochemical failure-free survival rate was 95.4% for the preplanning and 94.0% for the intraoperative planning group (P = 0.776). Multivariate analysis revealed Gleason score, biopsy positive rate and V100 to be predictors of biochemical failure-free survival, while the planning technique was not significant. Conclusion: This large-scale analysis of high-quality implants revealed similar postimplant dosimetry, toxicity profiles and biochemical failure-free survival for the preplanning and intraoperative planning methods.

AB - Objective: To compare two widely used permanent prostate brachytherapy techniques, preplanning and intraoperative planning, based on postimplant dosimetry, toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Methods: Between 2003 and 2006, 665 men with localized prostate cancer were treated with permanent interstitial implantation. The first 227 consecutive men were treated with the preplanning technique, followed by 438 men treated with the intraoperative technique. Late toxicity was scored by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen increase of more than 2 ng/ml above the nadir value excluding a benign bounce. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the variables associated with biochemical failure-free survival. Results: Postimplant target coverage was similar in the two groups, with a small difference in risk organ doses. Mean V100 was 96.3 vs. 96.7% (P = 0.205), D90 was 119.6 vs. 119.4% (P = 0.884), urethral D10 was 157.5 vs. 146.1% (P = 0.010), rectal V100 was 0.57 vs. 0.43 cc (P = 0.002) in the preplanning and intraoperative planning groups, respectively. Acute and late Grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were , <1% for both methods. The 5-year biochemical failure-free survival rate was 95.4% for the preplanning and 94.0% for the intraoperative planning group (P = 0.776). Multivariate analysis revealed Gleason score, biopsy positive rate and V100 to be predictors of biochemical failure-free survival, while the planning technique was not significant. Conclusion: This large-scale analysis of high-quality implants revealed similar postimplant dosimetry, toxicity profiles and biochemical failure-free survival for the preplanning and intraoperative planning methods.

KW - Brachytherapy

KW - Intraoperative planning

KW - Preplanning

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875802594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875802594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jjco/hys240

DO - 10.1093/jjco/hys240

M3 - Article

C2 - 23315386

AN - SCOPUS:84875802594

VL - 43

SP - 383

EP - 389

JO - Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0368-2811

IS - 4

ER -