Salvage Brachytherapy for Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer following Primary Brachytherapy

Purpose. In this study, we evaluated our experience with salvage brachytherapy after discovery of biochemical recurrence after a prior brachytherapy procedure. Methods and Materials. From 2001 through 2012 twenty-one patients treated by brachytherapy within University of Kentucky or from outside cen...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: John M. Lacy, William A. Wilson, Raevti Bole, Li Chen, Ali S. Meigooni, Randall G. Rowland, William H. St. Clair
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2016-01-01
Series:Prostate Cancer
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9561494
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose. In this study, we evaluated our experience with salvage brachytherapy after discovery of biochemical recurrence after a prior brachytherapy procedure. Methods and Materials. From 2001 through 2012 twenty-one patients treated by brachytherapy within University of Kentucky or from outside centers developed biochemical failure and had no evidence of metastases. Computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated; patients who had an underseeded portion of their prostate were considered for reimplantation. Results. The majority of the patients in this study (61.9%) were low risk and median presalvage PSA was 3.49 (range 17.41–1.68). Mean follow-up was 61 months. At last follow-up after reseeding, 11/21 (52.4%) were free of biochemical recurrence. There was a trend towards decreased freedom from biochemical recurrence in low risk patients (p=0.12). International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) increased at 3-month follow-up visits but decreased and were equivalent to baseline scores at 18 months. Conclusions. Salvage brachytherapy after primary brachytherapy is possible; however, in our experience the side-effect profile after the second brachytherapy procedure was higher than after the first brachytherapy procedure. In this cohort of patients we demonstrate that approximately 50% oncologic control, low risk patients appear to have better outcomes than others.
ISSN:2090-3111
2090-312X