Prostate inverse brachy boost - 10 Gy with implantation of gold markers – results and feasibility
PO-2197
Abstract
Prostate inverse brachy boost - 10 Gy with implantation of gold markers – results and feasibility
Authors: Marcin Hetnał1, Agata Romaniszyn2, Katarzyna Serwańska3, Magdalena Tumidajewicz3, Wojciech Burchardt4
1Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University,, Amethyst Radiotherapy Centre, Rydygier Hospital, , Kraków, Poland; 2Rydygier Hospital, Krakow, Amethyst Radiotherapy Centre, , Kraków, Poland; 3Rydygier Hospital, Amethyst Radiotherapy Centre, , Kraków, Poland; 4Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Brachytherapy , Poznań, Poland
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
Modern external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) of the prostate is performed with implanted markers. The inserting the markers need time, equipment, staff and is cost–consuming for the health care providers. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and toxicity of treatment of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients with 10 Gy inverse brachytherapy (BT) boost with implantation of gold markers and subsequent EBRT.
Material and Methods
Between September 2016 and October 2018, 87pts with intermediate (33 pts) or high (54 pts) risk prostate cancer were treated. Median age was 71 (range 47-84.) Median follow-up time was 44 months (range 2-700 . Median BT time was 200 minutes (range 120-285). The endpoints of the analysis were biochemical relapse-free survival (LRRFS), clinical relapse-free survival (CRFS) and overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rates. Toxicity was assessed according to CTCAv4.
Results
The ADT was used in all patients form 6 to 24 months.
The 3-year BFS was 90%, CRFS was 94% and OS was 100%. BFS was 94% in intermediate and 88% in high-risk group (p=0,06 ns).
Time to BFS was 17 months. There have been 7 distant and 1 local relapse.
Early genitourinary (GU) toxicity was reported in 40% - G1, 38% - 38% and most common acute toxicities were nycturia and frequency. Late GU toxicity was mild: G1 – 5%, G2 – 3% with most common urinary incontinence.
Early gastrointestinal toxicity was noticed in 14%-G1, 14%-G2 and 1%-G3 (bleeding). Late GU were reported in 7%-G1 and in 1%-G2 pts (bleeding).
Conclusion
Treatment using scheme: 10 Gy inverse brachytherapy boost with implantation of gold markers and subsequent prostate or pelvic EBRT with ADT is effective and well tolerated and feasible. Implantation of gold markers during BT session can reduce workload of radiotherapy department.