RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The long-standing confusion regarding the clinical relevance of postimplant biopsies is complicated by the common occurrence of temporary PSA rises between 1 and 2 years after brachytherapy. We report here 4 patients with temporary, self-limited PSA rises and postimplant biopsies, for whom radical prostatectomy was strongly advised but for whom surgery would probably have been the wrong choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transperineal I-125 or Pd-103 implants were performed as previously described. After implantation, patients were followed routinely, with repeat PSA and physical examination at approximately every 4 to 6 months. Timing of postimplant PSAs was at the discretion of the patient and his doctors. Postimplant biopsies were performed in all cases out of concern for a persistently elevated serum PSA. Sections of fixed and embedded tissue were stained with standard hematoxylin and eosin. RESULTS: All 4 patients presented here were advised to have a salvage prostatectomy based primarily on their PSA changes. However, all of the patients have subsequently had a dramatic PSA fall, consistent with long-term cancer control, despite the fact that 3 of the 4 had histologic evidence of persistent cancer on repeat prostate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: It is crucial that clinicians be aware of the potential for the doubly confusing situation of temporary PSA rises and apparently positive rebiopsies and the pressure it puts on both patients and their physicians to go ahead with inappropriate salvage therapy.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/radioterapia , Biomarcadores de Tumor/sangre , Braquiterapia , Proteínas de Neoplasias/sangre , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangre , Próstata/patología , Prostatectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Terapia Recuperativa/estadística & datos numéricos , Procedimientos Innecesarios , Adenocarcinoma/sangre , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Biopsia , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Radioisótopos de Yodo/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasia Residual , Paladio/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/sangre , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Radioisótopos/uso terapéutico , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
Our aim was to document the technical and clinical course of prostate brachytherapy patients with radiographic evidence of median lobe hyperplasia (MLH). Eight patients with MLH were identified during our routine brachytherapy practice, representing 9% of the 87 brachytherapy patients treated during a 6-month period. No effort was made to avoid brachytherapy in patients noted to have MLH on diagnostic work-up. Cystoscopic evaluation was not routinely performed. Postimplant axial computed tomographic (CT) images of the prostate were obtained at 0.5 cm intervals. Preimplant urinary obstructive symptoms were quantified by the criteria of the American Urologic Association (AUA). Each patient was contacted during the writing of this report to update postimplant morbidity information. There was no apparent association between the degree of MLH and preimplant prostate volume or AUA score. Intraoperatively, we were able to visualize MLH by transrectal ultrasound and did not notice any particular difficulty placing sources in the MLH tissue or migration of sources out of the tissue. The prescription isodose covered from 81% to 99% of the postimplant CT-defined target volume, achieving adequate dose to the median lobe tissue in all patients. Two of the eight patients developed acute, postimplant urinary retention. The first patient required intermittent self-catheterization for 3 months and then resumed spontaneous urination. MLH does not appear to be a strong contraindication to prostate brachytherapy, and prophylactic resection of hypertrophic tissue in such patients is probably not warranted. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest.) 90, 152-156 (2000).
Asunto(s)
Braquiterapia , Hiperplasia Prostática/radioterapia , Anciano , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
Prostate brachytherapy is an increasingly popular treatment for early-stage prostate cancer. Until now, spinal or general anesthesia for the procedure has been the standard of care. For patient safety, patient convenience, and to limit use of operating facilities, the authors started performing implants routinely with local anesthesia. We present here an evaluation of patients' acceptance of prostate brachytherapy under local anesthesia. On arrival at our department on the morning of the procedure, the patient is brought into the simulator suite, an intravenous line is started, and a urinary catheter is inserted. With the patient in the lithotomy position, a 5-by-5-cm patch of perineal skin and subcutaneous tissue is anesthetized by local infiltration of 10 mL of 1% lidocaine, using a 25-gauge 5/8-inch needle. Immediately following injection into the subcutaneous tissues, the deeper tissues, including the pelvic floor and prostate apex, are anesthetized by injecting 15 mL lidocaine solution with approximately 8 passes of a 20-gauge 1-inch needle. Following subcutaneous and periapical lidocaine injections, the transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) probe is positioned to reproduce the planning images and a 3.5- or 6-inch, 22-gauge spinal needle is inserted into the peripheral planned needle tracks, monitored by TRUS. When the tips of the needles reach the prostatic base, about 1 mL of lidocaine solution is injected in the intraprostatic track, as the needle is slowly withdrawn. The lidocaine infiltration procedure takes approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Seed implantation is then performed as previously described. At the time of this report preparation, 58 of the 71 patients (81%) were interviewed, with a median follow-up of 6 months since the implant procedure. On a scale of 1 to 10, the median biopsy pain score was 4.5 compared with a median pain score with the implant procedure of 3.0. There was no clear correlation between the two scores (r = .26). There was no correlation between patients' implant pain score and the number of implant needles used, the pre-implant prostate size, or patient age. The prostate radiation dose coverage, calculated as the percent of the post-implant volume covered by the prescription isodose, averaged 88% (range, 75% to 99%). Five of the 55 patients interviewed (9%) stated that they would have preferred to have the procedure under general anesthesia. Ranked on a 1 to 5 scale, the median patient satisfaction was 5 and the average was 4.4. The substitution of local anesthesia has facilitated rapid introduction of a high-volume brachytherapy program at an institution, without requiring the allocation of significant operating room time. We are pleased with the overall level of patient comfort and satisfaction.
Asunto(s)
Anestesia Local/psicología , Braquiterapia/métodos , Braquiterapia/psicología , Satisfacción del Paciente , Neoplasias de la Próstata/radioterapia , Anciano , Anestésicos Locales , Humanos , Lidocaína , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , UltrasonografíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To determine the degree and variability of radiation exposure to the general public from patients after I-125 or Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation exposure measurements were made from 38 consecutive, unselected patients with stage T1 or T2 prostatic carcinoma who had transperineal I-125 or Pd-103 implants at the University of Washington in 1998. RESULTS: The exposure rate at the anterior skin surface following a I-125 implant ranged from 2.2 to 8.9 mrem/hour (average: 5.0). The exposure rate at the anterior skin surface from a Pd-103 implant ranged from 0.5 to 4.9 mrem/hour (average: 1.7). Based on the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations the time required to reach the annual limit at the anterior skin surface would be 20 hours for I-125 and 59 hours for Pd-103. For exposure at the lateral skin surface, the times would exceed 500 hours for either isotope. CONCLUSIONS: This data suggest that patients need not be concerned about being a radiation risk to the general public following their procedure.