eISSN: 2081-2841
ISSN: 1689-832X
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy
Current Issue Archive Supplements Articles in Press Journal Information Aims and Scope Editorial Office Editorial Board Register as Author Register as Reviewer Instructions for Authors Abstracting and indexing Subscription Advertising Information Links
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Search
6/2018
vol. 10
 
Share:
Send email
Share:
abstract:
Original paper

Brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer in the modern era: a comparison of patient-reported quality of life outcomes among different techniques

Tiffany M. Morgan
,
Robert H. Press
,
Patrick K. Cutrell
,
Chao Zhang
,
Zhengja Chen
,
Sara Rahnema
,
Martin Sanda
,
John Pattaras
,
Pretesh R. Patel
,
Ashesh B. Jani
,
Peter J. Rossi

J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10, 6: 495–502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2018.81024
Online publish date: 2018/12/28
View full text Get citation
 
Purpose
To report our institutional quality of life (QOL) data for low-dose-rate (LDR) monotherapy (LDR mono), high-dose-rate (HDR) monotherapy (HDR mono), and EBRT with an HDR brachytherapy boost (HDR boost).

Material and methods
The charts of 165 patients with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated with LDR monotherapy (LDR mono), HDR monotherapy (HDR mono), and EBRT with an HDR brachytherapy boost (HDR boost) at a single institution between 2012 and 2015 were reviewed. All patients completed the American Urological Association symptom score (AUASS) and Expanded Prostate Index for Prostate Cancer – Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) quality of life assessments prior to treatment and at least one follow-up survey. Time points included baseline, ≤ 2 months, 2-≤ 6 months, 6-≤ 12 months, 12-≤ 18 months, 18-≤ 24 months, 24-≤ 30 months, and > 30 months. Linear mixed models were performed to test for significant changes and differences in each outcome over time.

Results
Mean follow-up was 19.5 months. All major functional QOL domains were affected after treatment with brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. All domains improved over time, with the exception of sexual function scores for all groups and urinary incontinence scores for the HDR mono group. Patients treated with LDR did have higher AUA, irritability/obstructive symptoms, incontinence, bowel, and QOL scores acutely compared to the HDR and HDR + boost groups. Vitality scores were significantly worse in the HDR boost group both acutely and at the > 30-month time point.

Conclusions
Patients receiving HDR brachytherapy had lower acute urinary and rectal toxicity compared to the patients receiving LDR, even when combined with EBRT. However, long-term toxicity was similar.

keywords:

brachytherapy, quality of life, prostatic neoplasms

  
Termedia
About us Contact
Copyright notice Privacy policy Advertising policy Contact us
Quick links
Journals Books eBooks Events
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.