Impact of age on the Quadrella index assessing oncological and functional results after prostate brachytherapy: A 6-year analysis.
IIEF-5
IPSS
brachytherapy
prostate cancer
radiation therapy
Journal
Journal of contemporary brachytherapy
ISSN: 1689-832X
Titre abrégé: J Contemp Brachytherapy
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 101506276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
05
02
2023
accepted:
03
04
2023
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
22
5
2023
entrez:
22
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
As the oncological results of prostate brachytherapy (BT) are excellent for low-risk (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa), evaluating the side effects has become a major issue, especially for young men. The objective of the study was to compare the oncologic and functional results of BT using Quadrella index for patients aged 60 or less compared with older patients. From June, 2007 to June, 2017, 222 patients, including 70 ≤ 60 years old and 152 > 60 years old, underwent BT for LR-FIR PCa, with good erectile function at baseline according to International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) > 16. Quadrella index was achieved under the following circumstances: 1) Absence of biological recurrence (Phoenix criteria); 2) Absence of erectile dysfunction (ED) (IIEF-5 > 16); 3) No urinary toxicity (international prostate score symptom) IPSS < 15 or IPSS > 15, and ΔIPSS < 5; 4) No rectal toxicity (RT) (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, RTOG = 0). Patients were treated on demand with phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDE5i) post-operatively. The Quadrella index was satisfied for about 40-80% of patients ≤ 60 years vs. 33-46% for older patients during 6-year follow-up (significant difference from the second year). At year 5, 100% of evaluable patients aged ≤ 60 and 91.8% > 60 ( For young men displaying LR-FIR PCa, BT appears to be a first-class therapeutic option, as the oncological results were at least equivalent to those of older patients with good long-term tolerance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37215618
doi: 10.5114/jcb.2023.127049
pii: 50616
pmc: PMC10196736
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
89-95Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Termedia.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Références
J Urol. 2008 Jan;179(1):141-5; discussion 146
pubmed: 17997424
BJU Int. 2013 Jun;111(8):1231-6
pubmed: 23551568
J Sex Med. 2009 Sep;6(9):2538-46
pubmed: 19515209
Brachytherapy. 2019 Mar - Apr;18(2):192-197
pubmed: 30635196
BJU Int. 2006 Aug;98(2):324-8
pubmed: 16879672
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
Eur Urol. 2003 Dec;44(6):656-60
pubmed: 14644116
Eur Urol. 2011 Jan;59(1):61-71
pubmed: 21056534
J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2019 Jun;11(3):195-200
pubmed: 31435425
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
J Sex Med. 2005 May;2(3):432-7
pubmed: 16422876
BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109 Suppl 1:22-9
pubmed: 22239226
BJU Int. 2018 Jan;121(1):38-45
pubmed: 28670842
BJU Int. 2007 Aug;100(2):362-7
pubmed: 17617140
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Jul 1;44(4):789-99
pubmed: 10386635
Urology. 2010 Nov;76(5):1194-8
pubmed: 20888624
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Aug 1;77(5):1315-21
pubmed: 20044216
Brachytherapy. 2018 Sep - Oct;17(5):782-787
pubmed: 29936129
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Mar 15;52(4):893-902
pubmed: 11958881
BJU Int. 2013 Jul;112(1):60-7
pubmed: 23759009
Acta Oncol. 2019 Jul;58(7):1029-1035
pubmed: 30761939
Urology. 2013 Feb;81(2):364-8
pubmed: 23374803
Radiother Oncol. 2014 Apr;111(1):110-3
pubmed: 24560751