Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2021 (12) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (12)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (12)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (12)
Schlagworte
- Radiotherapy (3)
- Fasting (2)
- Glioblastoma (2)
- Glucose (2)
- Ketogenic diet (2)
- Leptin (2)
- Radiation (2)
- brachytherapy (2)
- BRUCE (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
Institut
- Medizin (12)
Introduction: To evaluate the oncological outcome of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BRT) as monotherapy for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCA).
Material and Methods: Between January 2002 and February 2004, 141 consecutive patients with clinically localised PCA were treated with HDR-BRT monotherapy. The cohort comprised 103 (73%) low-, 32 (22.7%) intermediate- and 6 (4.3%) high risk patients according to D’Amico classification or 104 (73.8%) low-, 24 (17.0%) intermediate favourable-, 12 (8.5%) intermediate unfavourable- and one (0.7%) very high risk patient according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) one. Patients received four fractions of 9.5 Gy delivered within a single implant up to a total physical dose of 38 Gy. Catheter-implantation was transrectal ultrasound-based whereas treatment planning CT-based. Thirty-three patients (23.4%) received ADT neoadjuvantly and continued concurrently with BRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus Criteria and genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluated using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0.
Results: Median age at treatment and median follow-up time was 67.2 and 15.2 years, respectively. Twenty-three (16.3%) patients experienced a biochemical relapse and 5 (3.5%) developed distant metastases, with only one patient dying of PCA. The BRFS was 85.1% at 15 years and 78.7% at 18 years. The corresponding overall survival, metastases-free survival, and prostate cancer specific mortality at 15- and 18-years was 73.9%/59.1%, 98.3%/90.6%, and 100%/98.5% respectively. Late grade 3 GI and GU toxicity was 4.2% and 5.6% respectively. Erectile dysfunction grade 3 was reported by 27 (19%) patients. From the prognostic factors evaluated, tumor stage (≤T2b compared to ≥T2c) along with the risk group (low-intermediate vs. high) when using the D’Amico classification but not when the NCCN one was taken into account, correlated significantly with BRFS.
Conclusion: Our long-term results confirm HDR-BRT to be a safe and effective monotherapeutic treatment modality for low- and intermediate risk PCA.
In combination with radiotherapy, immunotherapy is becoming an increasingly used strategy in treating advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. The evident impact of radiotherapy on local and systemic immune response is an indication of the synergistic effect of these two modalities. There is a strong rationale to combine radiotherapy and immunotherapy to enhance response rates and overcome resistances. Therefore, the combination of radio- and immunotherapy holds a variety of opportunities as well as challenges in treating primary cancer and is progressively tested in curative settings. Brachytherapy is also known as internal radiation therapy and only offers a local therapy option at first glance: due to tumor-specific antigens, released by a high local radiation dose, a systemic immune response could be plausible and eminent. Accordingly, brachytherapy could be an underestimated partner with immuno-therapeutic approaches in both curative and palliative settings, to generate local and systemic response. In this review, we summarized the potential benefit of a potential combination of brachytherapy and immuno-therapeutic approaches vs. the background of limited data.