103Pd brachytherapy versus radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a 12-year experience from a single group practice.

PURPOSE: In an effort to shed light on the continuing debate over the best treatment options for patients with localized prostate cancer, we present a retrospective review of patients from a single group community urology practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 1707 patients were reviewed. These patients, with T1 or T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate, were treated from 1992 to 2004 with either brachytherapy or radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRPP); 81% were aged over 65 years. Patients were classified into risk groups based on initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason score. Time to PSA-indicated recurrence was used as the measure of disease control and cure. RESULTS: Time to PSA-indicated recurrence was used as a measure of efficacy. Brachytherapy with 103Pd exclusively and RRPP were found to provide equivalent control (<0.4 ng/mL for prostatectomy and <3 successive rises in PSA as defined by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO]) in low-risk groups (89% seeds vs. 94% RRPP). In intermediate (89% seeds vs. 58% RRPP) and high-risk (88% seeds vs. 43% RRPP) groups, brachytherapy patients had better control rates. The addition of external radiation, with or without luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone therapy, improved biochemical control rates in intermediate and high-risk brachytherapy groups. CONCLUSION: The results failed to show any superiority of prostatectomy over brachytherapy with 103Pd (TheraSeed; Theragenics Corp., Buford, GA) regarding time until relapse as indicated by PSA level increase (>0.4 ng/mL for prostatectomy and >3 successive rises in PSA as defined by ASTRO). We recently reviewed our techniques and improved equipment from 1995 to present and found major gains with both brachytherapy and surgery. Low risk brachytherapy resulted in 99% freedom from PSA failure while surgery showed results of 97%. Brachytherapy and prostatectomy should be offered without bias to all men with stage T1 and T2 organ-confined prostate cancer.

Brachytherapy versus radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

In an effort to help physicians offer their patients unbiased advice on the best alternatives for treatment of localized prostate cancer, we present a retrospective comparison of the effectiveness of brachytherapy and radical retropubic prostatectomy in 1305 men with stage T1 and T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Data from 1305 patients treated in our community-based private practice urology group from 1993 to 2002 were reviewed, and patients were classified by initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and risk grouping. Risk grouping was defined by preoperative PSA levels and Gleason scores. We used time to PSA-indicated recurrence as the measure of efficacy. Brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy provided similar responses to treatment (no significant differences given the sample size, length of follow-up, and numerical differences observed) for localized prostate cancers. A prospective study is presently underway to evaluate the respective outcome of these procedures (including incidence of incontinence and impotence), and assess their impact on patient quality of life. The results presented here fail to show any superiority of prostatectomy over brachytherapy with palladium-103 (TheraSeed; Theregenics Corp., Buford, GA) with respect to time until relapse indicated by PSA level increase (> 0.2 ng/mL for prostatectomy and >1.5 ng/mL and rising for brachytherapy). In fact, any differences between treatments favor brachytherapy, particularly for intermediate- and high-risk groups. We conclude that both brachytherapy and prostatectomy should be offered, equally and without bias, to men with stage T1 or T2 organ-confined prostate cancer.