Opinion statement
After skin cancer, prostate cancer (CaP) is the most common cancer diagnosed in men. As a result of screening with prostate-specific antigen, CaP is being caught earlier than it was in the past. This has led to an increase in cure rates across all treatment modalities. There are no firm, reproducible data that demonstrate the superiority of one modality over another. The expectations for cure should be approximately 90% for low-risk patients and approximately 80% for intermediate-risk patients, regardless of treatment modality. The toxicity of available treatment modalities discriminates among them. All modalities have acute toxicity of similar severity; however, prostate brachytherapy (PI) has the least amount of long-term toxicity when compared with external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy. Therefore, a patient who is confronted with the diagnosis of CaP is counseled to choose among the modalities based on the toxicity rather than the efficacy of the treatment options available. Adopting this evidence-based algorithm has led to the increased application of PI.
Similar content being viewed by others
References and Recommended Reading
Kunz GF: Luminous Composition. United States Patent Office. United States, 1905.
Ciezki JP, Klein EA, Angermeier K, et al: A retrospective comparison of the use of androgen deprivation among low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 60:1347–1350.
Kupelian PA, Buchsbaum JC, Elshaikh MA, et al: Improvement in relapse-free survival throughout the PSA era in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy: year of treatment an independent predictor of outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 57:629–634. This reference supports the use of monotherapy for the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This approach has fewer side effects and equivalent efficacy.
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE, et al: Impact of supplemental external beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61:32–43. This reference underscores the importance of the year of treatment as an independent prognosticator.
Wilkinson DA, Lee EJ, Ciezki JP, et al: Dosimetric comparison of pre-planned and or-planned prostate seed brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 48:1241–1244.
Nag S, Beyer D, Friedland J, et al: American brachytherapy society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal placement brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 44:789–799.
Elshaikh MA, Angermeier K, Ulchaker J, et al: The effect of anatomic, procedural, and dosimetric variables on urinary retention after permanent iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy. Urology 2003, 61:152–155.
Cox J, Grignon D, Kaplan R, et al: Consensus statement: guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997, 37:1035–1041.
Robinson JW, Moritz S, Fung T: Meta-analysis of rates of erectile dysfunction after treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 54:1063–1068.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ciezki, J.P. Prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 6, 389–393 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-005-0042-x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-005-0042-x