Conventional versus automated implantation of loose seeds in prostate brachytherapy: analysis of dosimetric and clinical results.

Abstract

To review the clinical outcome of I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer and to compare 2 techniques of loose-seed implantation. 574 consecutive patients underwent I-125 PPB for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2000 and 2008. Two successive techniques were used: conventional implantation from 2000 to 2004 and automated implantation (Nucletron, FIRST system) from 2004 to 2008. Dosimetric and biochemical recurrence-free (bNED) survival results were reported and compared for the 2 techniques. Univariate and multivariate analysis researched independent predictors for bNED survival. 419 (73%) and 155 (27%) patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk disease, respectively, were treated (median follow-up time, 69.3 months). The 60-month bNED survival rates were 95.2% and 85.7%, respectively, for patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk disease (P=.04). In univariate analysis, patients treated with automated implantation had worse bNED survival rates than did those treated with conventional implantation (P<.0001). By day 30, patients treated with automated implantation showed lower values of dose delivered to 90% of prostate volume (D90) and volume of prostate receiving 100% of prescribed dose (V100). In multivariate analysis, implantation technique, Gleason score, and V100 on day 30 were independent predictors of recurrence-free status. Grade 3 urethritis and urinary incontinence were observed in 2.6% and 1.6% of the cohort, respectively, with no significant differences between the 2 techniques. No grade 3 proctitis was observed. Satisfactory 60-month bNED survival rates (93.1%) and acceptable toxicity (grade 3 urethritis<3%) were achieved by loose-seed implantation. Automated implantation was associated with worse dosimetric and bNED survival outcomes.