Prostate Brachytherapy for intermediate risk patients - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 34
About This Presentation
Title:

Prostate Brachytherapy for intermediate risk patients

Description:

Prostate Brachytherapy for intermediate risk patients. David Bottomley. Cookridge ... POST-IMPLANT CT DOSIMETRY SEATTLE IMPLANTS. MONOTHERAPY TREATMENT MARGINS ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:58
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: Pro5154
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Prostate Brachytherapy for intermediate risk patients


1
Prostate Brachytherapy for intermediate risk
patients
  • David Bottomley
  • Cookridge Hospital
  • Leeds

2
Intermediate risk patients
  • Gleason gt 6 (exclude Gleason 9, 10)
  • PSA gt 10 lt 20
  • gtT2
  • 1 risk factor allowed, otherwise high risk

3
PARTIN TABLESLOW RISK
  • T1-T2, Gleason lt 6, PSA lt 10
  • CP 9 - 44
  • SV 0 - 5
  • LN 0 - 4

4
DFS POST SURGERY WITH ECE ANDNEGATIVE MARGINS
5
EXTRAPROSTATIC EXTENSION
6
RADIAL EXTENT OF EXTRAPROSTATIC DISEASE (EPD)
c T1-T2/ Gl lt 6/ PSA lt 10
  • DAVIS 107 SPEC.
  • 10 demonstrated EPD
  • Mean extension 0.03 mm
  • Max. extension 0.6 mm

7
PARTIN TABLESINTERMEDIATE RISK
  • T1-T2, Gleason gt6, PSA lt 10
  • T1-T2, Gleason lt 7, PSA 10-20
  • CP 30 - 57
  • SV 4 - 24
  • LN 1 - 16

8
MAGNITUDE OF ECE VS PSA/GLEASON
Soyhada
9
POST-IMPLANT CT DOSIMETRY SEATTLE IMPLANTS
10
MONOTHERAPY TREATMENT MARGINS(26 Patients,
13,104 Data Points)
Merrick, Wallner
11
PURPOSE OF ADDING EXTERNAL BEAM
  • Addresses disease potentially beyond implant
    range
  • Capsule penetration
  • S.V. Invasion
  • Indicated if any one factor present
  • gt T2 / Gl gt6 / PSA gt10
  • Spackle effect

12
SPACKLE EFFECT OF EBRT
13
THERAPEUTIC MARGIN HOW MUCH DOES 45 GY EBRT ADD?
  • AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL EXTRAPROSTATIC TISSUE
    COVERED BY THE ADDITION OF 45 GY
  • ASSUMPTIONS
  • Minimum cancericidal isodose line with EBRT is at
    the 50 brachy isodose
  • Therapeutic margin therefore increased by 4 mm

14
25mm
15
THERAPEUTIC MARGINS
16
MAGNITUDE OF ECE VS PSA/GLEASON
Soyhada
17
bNED iPSA 10-20MONOTHERAPY VS COMBINED
Mono. Blasko Zelefsky Combined
Dattoli Critz
18

I125/ Pd103 IMPLANT EBRT PSA PFS
Intermediate Risk, n 200
EBRT Implant - 84
Implant Alone - 74
Cumulative Probability
p0.16
Low T1-T2b / GSlt7 / iPSAlt10 Intermediate T2c /
GSgt6 / iPSAgt10 (1 Factor) High T2c / GSgt6 /
iPSAgt10 (2 Factors)
0.0
0
12
Time post-implant (months)
19
DISADVANTAGES OF ADDING EBRT
  • Increased morbidity
  • Decreased patient convenience
  • Increased cost

20
Hormones and Seed Implants
  • Commonly used to downsize large prostates prior
    to seed implant
  • Lee et al (IJROBP 200252(2) 444-52
  • 201 Patients of intermediate high risk (Glgt6,
    PSAgt10, stagegtT2a). Follow-up 42 months
  • BDFS 79 with hormones
  • BDFS 54 without hormones

21
Implant quality and outcome
  • Stock et al 1998
  • 134 patients (T1/2, Gleason lt7)
  • D90 calculated
  • 4 year FFBF 68 for D90lt 140 Gy
  • 92 for D90gt 140 Gy
  • 81 for D90100-140 Gy
  • Difference greater when presenting PSAgt10

22
Leeds results 3/95 12/01seeds alone 145Gy
  • Patients 667
  • Mean age 63 (range 42-77)
  • Hormones 346 (51.9)
  • PSAlt10 421 (63.1)
  • Gleasonlt7 462 (69.2)
  • T1-T2a 519 (77.7)

23
Number of patients of each risk group and PSA
relapse-free survival rate
24
I125/Pd103 IMPLANT EBRT BRFS BY RISK GROUP,
n 634
Low Risk
Intermediate Risk
High Risk
Cumulative Probability
Low T1-T2 / GSlt7 / iPSAlt10 Intermediate T3 /
GSgt6 / iPSAgt10 (1 Factor) High T3 / GSgt6 /
iPSAgt10 (2 Factors)
Patients at Risk
612 555 461 361 263 193 129 78 33
16 9 1
0.0
0
12
Time post-implant (months)
25
Actuarial PSA-RFS according to ESTRO risk groups
based on initial PSA and Gleason score prior to
treatment.84.3 Solid line, Low risk 73.9
dashed Intermediate risk and 52.6 dotted High
risk
26
Hormones v no hormones in intermediate risk group
Ns
27
Multivariate analysis to predict PSA relapse free
survival
28
Influence of Gleason grade on outcome after
brachytherapy
  • 1029 consecutive patients at MSK 1993-99
  • All T1/T2. All had central pathology review
  • 614 grade 33
  • 208 grade 34
  • 150 grade 43
  • 57 grade 44
  • Potters et al IJROBP 2003, 56(3)749-754

29
Stratification of treatment
30
Kaplan-Meier biochemical freedom from recurrence
(median follow-up 46m)
31
Multivariate analysis of factors predicting for
BFR
32
Comparison of Two I125 Monotherapy Cohorts
Biochemical Relapse Free
Low Risk Intermed. Risk
Grimm et al IJROBP 2001
33
BFR
34
Conclusion
  • Results in medical literature conflicting for
    intermediate risk patients
  • Inconclusive evidence of benefit of additional
    EBRT or NAAD
  • Further studies required
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com