Tri-modality therapy with i-125 brachytherapy, external beam radiation therapy, and short-term hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
We present tri-modality therapy with i-125 brachytherapy for high-risk prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.Case presentation
A 75-year-old man had visited our hospital with complaints of dysuria. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was performed for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The resected histopathological prostate tissue showed malignancy (Gleason score: 3 + 3 = 6). Two years thereafter, Gleason score progressed (4 + 5 = 9) concomitantly with increased prostate-specific antigen levels. Therefore, tri-modality therapy, including brachytherapy, was applied. Combined androgen blockade therapy was conducted over a 9-month period. One month after brachytherapy, external beam radiation was performed.Conclusion
Brachytherapy following transurethral prostate surgery is relatively contraindicated because of increased adverse urethral event frequency and seed placement difficulties. A tri-modality therapy, including brachytherapy, was implemented without any major problems in this patient with high-risk prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, following which he had a favorable prognosis without recurrence for 6 years.
SUBMITTER: Nakiri M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9249659 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere are few comparative outcomes data regarding the therapeutic delivery of proton beam therapy (PBT) versus the more widely used photon-based external-beam radiation (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT). We evaluated the impact of PBT on overall survival (OS) compared to EBRT or BT on patients with localized prostate cancer.Patients and methodsThe National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for 2004-2015. Men with clinical stage T1-3, N0, M0 prostate cancer treated with radiation, without surgery or chemotherapy, were included. OS, the primary clinical outcome, was fit by Cox proportional hazard model. Propensity score matching was implemented for covariate balance.ResultsThere were 276,880 eligible patients with a median follow-up of 80.9 months. A total of 4900 (1.8%) received PBT, while 158,111 (57.1%) received EBRT and 113,869 (41.1%) BT. Compared to EBRT and BT, PBT patients were younger and were less likely to be in the high-risk group. On multivariable analysis, compared to PBT, men had worse OS after EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-1.96) or BT (adjusted HR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58). After propensity score matching, the OS benefit of PBT remained significant compared to EBRT (HR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.04) but not BT (adjusted HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.93-1.48). The improvement in OS with PBT was most prominent in men ≤ 65 years old with low-risk disease compared to other subgroups (interaction P < .001).ConclusionIn this national data set, PBT was associated with a significant OS benefit compared to EBRT, and with outcomes similar to BT. These results remain to be validated by ongoing prospective trials.
| S-EPMC7914293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the outcomes of localized prostate cancer treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), we examined 924 patients treated with HDR-BT + external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 500 patients treated with LDR-BT ± EBRT using multi-institutional retrospective data. The HDR-BT treated advanced disease with more hormonal therapy than LDR-BT. To reduce background selection bias, we performed inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis using propensity scores and excluded patients with T3b-4 disease/ initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels > 50 ng/ml. The actuarial 5-year biochemical control rates (5y-bNED) were 96.3% and 95.7% in the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups, respectively. The corresponding values were 100% and 96.5% in the low-risk group; 97.4% and 97.1% in the intermediate-risk group (97.2% and 97% in the higher titer group and 97.5% and 94.6% in the lower titer group, respectively); and 95.7% and 94.9% in the selected high-risk group, respectively. IPTW correction indicated no significant difference among the groups. The 5y-bNED in the HDR-BT + EBRT, LDR-BT + EBRT, and LDR-BT alone groups were 96.3%, 95.5%, and 97%, respectively (P = 0.3011). The corresponding values were 97.4%, 94.7%, and 96.6% (P = 0.1004) in the intermediate-risk group (97.5%, 100%, and 94.5% in the lower titer group [P = 0.122] and 97.2%, 96.2%, and 100% [P = 0.664] in the higher titer group, respectively) and 95.7%, 95.5%, and 100% (P = 0.859) in the high-risk group, respectively. The HDR-BT group showed a lower incidence of acute grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities; the incidence of other early and late grade ≥ 2 toxicities were similar between the HDR-BT and LDR-BT groups. Acute genitourinary toxicity predicted the occurrence of late genitourinary toxicity. EBRT increased the risk of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. HDR-BT + EBRT is a good alternative to LDR-BT ± EBRT for low-, intermediate-, and selected high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC7969770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has been accepted as the most efficient method of transurethral surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The originally developed three-lobe technique has popularized this surgery; this method is based on three longitudinal incisions, by which the median lobe is removed, and subsequently, both lateral lobes are enucleated. To maintain a consistent surgical plane and to minimize sphincteric damage, the traditional three-lobe technique is continuously being refined and evolving. A few modifications of the original technique have been developed, and several en bloc enucleation methods have been introduced. However, more clinical evidence is required to show the superiority of newer techniques over the original three-lobe technique in terms of efficacy and long-term side effects. To date, none of the newer techniques have been accepted as a standard technique for HoLEP.
| S-EPMC6722407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThe prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.ResultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.ConclusionsMen treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.
| S-EPMC7492102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This study compared survival of prostate cancer patients with low prostate specific antigen level (PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml) and high-grades of Gleason score (GS) of 8-10 with different treatment options (i.e., radical prostatectomy [RP], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT], or external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy [EBRT+BT]). Materials and Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database data (2004-2013), and overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model and Fine and Gray competing risk model. Results: The SEER data contained 9,114 patients, 4,175 of whom received RP, 4,114 received EBRT, and 825 received EBRT+BT with a median follow-up duration of 47 months. RP patients had significantly better OS than patients with EBRT and EBRT+BT (adjusted HR [AHR]: 3.36, 95% CI: 2.43-4.64, P < 0.001; AHR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.32-3.48, P = 0.002; respectively). There was no statistical difference in PCSM between RP and EBRT+BT (AHR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.61-2.80, P = 0.485), while EBRT had worse OS (P < 0.05). The subgroup analysis revealed that there was no statistical difference in prognosis of patients with age of >70 years old, or PSA levels of ≤ 2.5 ng/ml between RP and EBRT+BT (P > 0.05). Conclusion: RP patients with low PSA levels and high GS had better OS compared to either EBRT or EBRT+BT, while RP and EBRT+BT resulted in significantly lower PCSM, compared to EBRT. Moreover, EBRT+BT and RP were associated with similar survival of patients with age of > 70 years old, or PSA levels of ≤ 2.5 ng/ml.
| S-EPMC6659440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate preoperative predictors of enucleation time during en bloc 'no-touch' holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) METHODS: We enrolled 135 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treated with en bloc 'no-touch' HoLEP from July 2017 to March 2019 by a single surgeon. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative clinical variables were examined. Stepwise linear regression was performed to determine clinical variables associated with enucleation times.ResultThe average (range) enucleation time was 46.1 (12-220) minutes, and the overall operation time was 71 (18-250) minutes. History of antiplatelet agents, history of urinary tract infection (UTI), and increasing specimen weight were each significantly associated with increasing enucleation time. No category IV complications were recorded, and all complications were evenly distributed among the groups according to the HoLEP specimen weight.ConclusionEn bloc 'no-touch' HoLEP was found to be an efficient and reproducible surgical method for treating BPH. Prostatic gland size was significantly associated with increased enucleation times. Similarly, history of UTI and antiplatelet agents were correlated with increased operative time.
| S-EPMC7661272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo demonstrate how bladder ultrasound can be useful in completing morcellation during difficult Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP). As HoLEP has emerged as a standard of care for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, multiple studies have reported the potentially catastrophic complication of bladder injury during morcellation. This video aims to assist any urologist performing HoLEP by providing step-by-step instruction for using ultrasound to complete morcellation safely.MethodsEnucleation is performed using a 26-French continuous flow scope, off-set laser bridge with a laser stabilization catheter, and a 550 µm holmium laser fiber. Once the median and lateral lobes have been enucleated, the outer sheath is removed and the nephroscope is inserted to facilitate morcellation. Under dual inflow irrigation, the Piranha morcellator (Richard Wolf, Knittlingen, Germany) is introduced and set to the manufacturer's recommended settings of 1500 rpm. A 3.5-MHz convex abdominal ultrasound transducer (Hitachi Prosound Alpha 7; Hitachi Aloka Medical America, Wallingford, CT) under B-mode is used to visualize the bladder, predominantly in the sagittal orientation. Morcellation proceeds under simultaneous ultrasound and direct cystoscopic guidance.ResultsThe distended bladder is visualized concurrently with the ultrasound and via the nephroscope as the Piranha engages the adenoma and begins morcellation. Once the adenoma is engaged, the operator then drops their hands to place the morcellator in the center of the bladder. Ultrasound provides real-time feedback as to the location of the morcellator in relation to the adenoma and bladder.ConclusionThis video highlights the use of intraoperative bladder ultrasound as a visual aid to assist during the morcellation portion of HoLEP. This proof of concept demonstrates that ultrasound can be an additional tool to utilize during difficult cases when cystoscopic visualization during morcellation is limited.
| S-EPMC8021387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer amongst men. For localized disease, there currently exist several reliable treatment modalities including surgery, radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Our growing understanding of this disease indicates that local control plays a very important role in prevention of subsequent dissemination. Many improvements to external beam radiotherapy over recent years have decreased toxicity and improved outcomes, but nonetheless, local relapse remains common. Many salvage options exist for locally recurrent prostate cancer, but are rarely offered, partly because of the fear of toxicity. Many men with isolated local recurrence therefore do not receive potentially curative second line treatment and are instead treated with palliative androgen suppression. Selection plays an important role in determining which individuals are likely to benefit from salvage. Those at high risk of pre-existing micro-metastatic disease despite negative staging scans are unlikely to benefit. Prostate brachytherapy has evolved over the more than 3 decades of experience. Modern techniques allow more precise tumor localization and dose delivery. Better understanding of dosimetric parameters can distinguish optimal from suboptimal implants. Salvage brachytherapy can be an effective treatment for locally recurrent prostate cancer after prior external beam radiotherapy. We review the literature pertaining to both low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR) salvage brachytherapy and discuss patient selection, optimal dose, treatment volume and toxicity avoidance.
| S-EPMC6043745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective:To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures:Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results:Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.
| S-EPMC5885899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:It remains controversial if radical prostatectomy or definitive radiation therapy produces equivalent outcomes in high-risk localized prostate cancer. METHODS:We queried The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for those who received upfront surgery or who were recommended for surgery but instead received radiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to adjust for covariate imbalance and the weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effects of treatment groups on survival. A meta-analysis was performed to pool estimates from published studies. RESULTS:Among eligible 62 533 patients, 59 540 had upfront surgery and 2993 patients had upfront radiotherapy. EBRT + BT was associated with a superior cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with surgery or EBRT alone (HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.3-1.0; HR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.24-0.98, respectively), whereas EBRT was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) compared with surgery (HR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.16-1.8). Radiotherapy (EBRT ± BT) was inferior to surgery by OS (HR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.13-2.34) in patients ? 65 years, and was superior to surgery by CSS in patients > 65 years (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). The meta-analysis showed consistent results. CONCLUSION:EBRT + BT was associated with a significantly better prostate CSS compared with surgery or EBRT. EBRT alone was inferior to surgery by OS.
| S-EPMC6943084 | biostudies-literature