Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beitler, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beitler, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 18, Issue 23 (December), 2000: 4003-4004
© 2000 American Society for Clinical Oncology


SPECIAL DEPARTMENTS

Why Stop at Using High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as a Boost for the Prostate?

Jonathan Beitler

Montefiore Medical Center The Albert Einstein Cancer Center Bronx, NY

To the Editor:I enjoyed reading the matched-pair analysis of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a boost for locally advanced prostate cancer1 and salute the authors’ commitment. A 9-year (and counting) dose escalation study certainly requires a great deal of patience (pun intended).

Reviewing the radiobiology arguments the authors make in favor of hypofractionation, as well as the increased precision in delivering the HDR therapy, I wonder whether they might consider HDR alone as treatment for patients who have either a low risk of lymphatic involvement or negative pelvic lymph node dissections. Certainly the iodine-125 experience supports that concept, and if brachytherapy can be done more precisely with an HDR afterloading technique, undergoing the procedure more than once may be acceptable to some.

The study by Kestin et al1 compares pelvic external radiation plus the HDR boost with prostate-only external radiation therapy. Since the study was offered to the same population (since 1992), I wonder at the rationale for offering pelvic irradiation to the group receiving HDR brachytherapy and making a different choice for those who were only to receive 66.6 Gy to the prostate alone who were not part of any study. If covering the pelvis was not necessary for the 1,109 patients treated at Willam Beaumont Hospital between 1987 and 1997, perhaps the authors might consider HDR therapy alone for some of these patients as well. The study concluded that patients with locally advanced prostate cancer produced lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadirs, longer time intervals until PSA nadir, and improved biochemical control when treated with external radiation plus conformal HDR brachytherapy. My guess is that the improvements just cited were due to the brachytherapy and that the larger external fields used with the brachytherapy were irrelevant, and perhaps unnecessary. We could certainly use someone with both patience and patients to answer these questions and to pioneer definitive HDR brachytherapy without external therapy for management of prostate cancer.

Could the authors also comment further on the 29% to 30%1,2 rate of impotence? I am particularly interested to know whether the rate of impotence increased with the biologically equivalent dose.

REFERENCES

1. Kestin LL, Martinez AA, Stromberg JS, et al: Matched-pair analysis of conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost versus external-beam radiation therapy alone for locally advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 2869-2880, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Martinez AA, Kestin LL, Stromberg JS, et al: Interim report of image-guided conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy for patients with unfavorable prostate cancer: The William Beaumont phase II dose-escalating trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47: 343-352, 2000[Medline]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beitler, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beitler, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2000 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online