Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jan 1;82(1):222-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.09.021. Epub 2010 Dec 14.

    High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer: comparison of two different fractionation schemes.

    Source

    Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California 94115, USA.

    Abstract

    PURPOSE:

    This is a retrospective study comparing our experience with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer, using two different fractionation schemes, 600 cGy × 3 fractions (patient group 1) and 950 cGy × 2 fractions (patient group 2).

    METHODS AND MATERIALS:

    A total of 165 patients were treated for prostate cancer using external beam radiation therapy up to a dose of 45 Gy, followed by an HDR brachytherapy prostate radiation boost. Between July 1997 and Nov 1999, 64 patients were treated with an HDR boost of 600 cGy × 3 fractions; and between June 2000 and Nov 2005, 101 patients were treated with an HDR boost of 950 cGy × 2 fractions. All but 9 patients had at least one of the following risk features: pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >10, a Gleason score ≥7, and/or clinical stage T3 disease.

    RESULTS:

    Median follow-up was 105 months for group 1 and 43 months for group 2. Patients in group 2 had a greater number of high-risk features than group 1 (p = 0.02). Adjusted for comparable follow-up, there was no difference in biochemical no-evidence-of-disease (bNED) rate between the two fractionation scheme approaches, with 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of 93.5% in group 1 and 87.3% in group 2 (p = 0.19). The 5-year estimates of progression-free survival were 86% for group 1 and 83% for group 2 (p = 0.53). Among high-risk patients, there were no differences in bNED or PFS rate due to fractionation.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Results were excellent for both groups. Adjusted for comparable follow-up, no differences were found between groups.

    Published by Elsevier Inc.

    PMID:
    21163586
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

      Supplemental Content

      Icon for Elsevier Science

      Save items

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk