Permanent prostate brachytherapy is safe in men with severe baseline lower urinary tract symptoms.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term urinary outcomes of men with severe pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) ± external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 105 men with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) 20-35 before PPB were categorized by IPSS change at last followup: (1) worse = IPSS rise >3; (2) no change = IPSS change within three points of baseline; (3) improved = IPSS fall by >3 points. We then evaluated patients who worsened vs. those who did not (no change or improved) with respect to incontinence outcomes, LUTS medication usage, and predictors of symptom worsening. RESULTS: Mean followup was 80.3 ± 55.8 months. Mean age was 66.3 ± 7.1 years; mean pretreatment IPSS was 23.6 ± 3.0. Overall mean improvement in IPSS was 7.6 ± 9.3. Specifically, 14.3% (15/105) worsened, 21.9% (23/105) had no significant change, and 63.8% (67/105) improved. There were no patient- or treatment-related factors significantly associated with long-term worsening of urinary symptoms. No men required anticholinergic therapy at last followup, whereas 7% (8/105) were using an alpha blocker. Only 2.9% (3/105) of men were using at least one pad daily at last followup. Alternatively, only 7.7% (8/105) reported subjective incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: PPB is an acceptable option in the setting of severe baseline LUTS in appropriately selected and counseled patients when performed by a skilled practitioner.

UroLift in Place of Fiducial Markers for Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Undergoing External Beam Radiation Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if using a novel treatment for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia (UroLift) to relive lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) prior to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) could also supplant the use of fiducial markers obviating the need for a second transrectal procedure while facilitating symptom-free voiding during and after EBRT a series of patients are reported on. METHODS: The medical records of 7 consecutive patients who underwent placement of UroLift for simultaneous treatment of obstructive LUTS due to benign prostatic hyperplasia and targeting of EBRT for treatment of prostate cancer between September and December of 2015 were reviewed. RESULTS: The UroLift clips were sufficiently radiopaque to make targeting possible for EBRT. All patients were able to complete a full course of radiotherapy without placement of fiducial markers. No patient experienced complications that could be attributed to the UroLift implants or procedure during their course of radiotherapy. None of the patients required additional alpha-blockers during radiation therapy. CONCLUSION: The UroLift system can serve as fiducial markers in patients undergoing EBRT. Although the current clip utilized in the UroLift system is generally radiopaque, it does not project well on the sagittal plane and would be significantly enhanced if a more strongly opaque substance was incorporated. It remains to be proven if the UroLift system can significantly reduce the symptoms of LUTS during and post EBRT.