Prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

被引:1
作者
Ciezki J.P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195
关键词
Prostate Cancer; Treatment Modality; Skin Cancer; Radical Prostatectomy; External Beam Radiotherapy;
D O I
10.1007/s11864-005-0042-x
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
After skin cancer, prostate cancer (CaP) is the most common cancer diagnosed in men. As a result of screening with prostate-specific antigen, CaP is being caught earlier than it was in the past. This has led to an increase in cure rates across all treatment modalities. There are no firm, reproducible data that demonstrate the superiority of one modality over another. The expectations for cure should be approximately 90% for low-risk patients and approximately 80% for intermediate-risk patients, regardless of treatment modality. The toxicity of available treatment modalities discriminates mong them. All modalities have acute toxicity of similar severity; however, prostate brachytherapy (PI) has the least amount of long-term toxicity when compared with external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy. Therefore, a patient who is confronted with the diagnosis of CaP is counseled to choose among the modalities based on the toxicity rather than the efficacy of the treatment options available. Adopting this evidence-based algorithm has led to the increased application of PI. Copyright © 2005 by Current Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:389 / 393
页数:4
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
Kunz G.F., Luminous Composition, (1905)
[2]  
Ciezki J.P., Klein E.A., Angermeier K., Et al., A retrospective comparison of the use of androgen deprivation among low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy, Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys., 60, pp. 1347-1350, (2004)
[3]  
Kupelian P.A., Buchsbaum J.C., Elshaikh M.A., Et al., Improvement in relapse-free survival throughout the PSA era in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy: Year of treatment an independent predictor of outcome, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 57, pp. 629-634, (2003)
[4]  
Merrick G.S., Butler W.M., Wallner K.E., Et al., Impact of supplemental external beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 61, pp. 32-43, (2005)
[5]  
Wilkinson D.A., Lee E.J., Ciezki J.F., Et al., Dosimetric comparison of pre-planned and or-planned prostate seed brachytherapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 48, pp. 1241-1244, (2000)
[6]  
Nag S., Beyer D., Friedland J., Et al., American brachytherapy society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal placement brachytherapy of prostate cancer, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 44, pp. 789-799, (1999)
[7]  
Elshaikh M.A., Angermeier K., Ulchaker J., Et al., The effect of anatomic, procedural, and dosimetric variables on urinary retention after permanent iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy, Urology, 61, pp. 152-155, (2003)
[8]  
Cox J., Grignon D., Kaplan R., Et al., Consensus statement: Guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 37, pp. 1035-1041, (1997)
[9]  
Robinson J.W., Moritz S., Fung T., Meta-analysis of rates of erectile dysfunction after treatment of localized prostate carcinoma, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 54, pp. 1063-1068, (2002)