125I versus 103Pd for low-risk prostate cancer: Preliminary PSA outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial

International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

Volumn 57, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 1297-1303

  Wallner, Kent ^a,b,c   Merrick, Gregory ^d   True, Lawrence ^b   Sutlief, Steven ^a,b   Cavanagh, William ^e   Butler, Wayne ^d  

^a DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^d WHEELING HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e Biostatistical Consultants Northwest   (United States)

Author keywords

Brachytherapy; Prostate carcinoma

Indexed keywords

BIOCHEMISTRY; BIOPSY; DOSIMETRY; HORMONES; ISOTOPES;

ISOTOPE IMPLANTATION;

ONCOLOGY;

IODINE 125; PALLADIUM 103; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSIMETRY; FOLLOW UP; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CARCINOMA; RADIATION DOSE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 0344395011     PISSN: 03603016     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(03)01448-2     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Wallner K., Blasko J., Dattoli M. Radiobiology. Dattoli M. Prostate brachytherapy made complicated. 2nd ed. 2001;p. 3.1-3.22 SmartMedicine Press, Seattle.
2. Dicker A.P., Lin C.-C., Leeper D.B., et al. Isotope selection for permanent prostate implants? An evaluation of 103-Pd versus 125- based on radiobiological effectiveness and dosimetry. Semin Urol Oncol. 18:2000;152-159.
3. Ling C.C. Permanent implants using Au-198, Pd-103 and I-125 Radiobiological considerations based on the linear quadratic model . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 23:1992;81-87.
4. Cha C.M., Potters L., Ashley R., et al. Isotope selection for patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 45:1999;391-395.
5. Peschel R.E., Chen Z., Roberts K., et al. Long-term complications with prostate implants iodine-125 vs. palladium-103 . Radiat Oncol Invest. 7:1999;278-288.
6. Nag S., Sweeney P.J., Wienthjes M.G. Dose-response study of iodine-125 and palladium-103 brachytherapy in a rat prostate tumor (Nb-AI-1). Endocur/Hypertherm. 9:1997;97-104.
7. Blasko J.C., Grimm P.D., Sylvester J.E., et al. The role of external beam radiotherapy with I-125/Pd-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 57:2000;273-278.
8. Dattoli M., Wallner K., True L., et al. Long-term outcomes following EBRT + Pd-103 for higher risk prostatic carcinoma Influence of prostatic acid phosphatase . Cancer. 97:2003;979-983.
9. Merrick G., Butler W., Lief J.H., et al. Biochemical outcome for hormone-naive intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with permanent interstitial brachytherapy and supplemental external beam radiation. Brachytherapy. 1:2002;95-101.
10. Zelefsky M.J., Hollister T., Raben A., et al. Five-year biochemical outcome and toxicity with transperineal CT-planned permanent I-125 prostate implantation for patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 47:2000;1261-1266.
11. Stock R.G., Stone N.N., Dahlal M., et al. What is the optimal dose for 125-I prostate implant? A dose-response analysis of biochemical control, posttreatment prostate biopsies, and long-term symptoms. Brachytherapy. 1:2002;83-89.
12. Wallner K., Merrick G., True L., et al. I-125 versus Pd-103 for low risk prostate cancer Morbidity outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial . Cancer J Sci Am. 8:2002;67-73.
13. Blasko J.C., Ragde H., Schumacher D. Transperineal percutaneous iodine-125 implantation for prostatic carcinoma using transrectal ultrasound and template guidance. Endo/Hypertherm. 3:1987;131-139.
14. Merrick G.S., Butler W.M. Modified uniform seed loading for prostate brachytherapy Rationale, design, and evaluation . Techn Urol. 6:2000;78-84.
15. Mueller A, Wallner K, Corriveau J, et al. A reappraisal of local anesthesia for prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2003;67:309-312.
16. Han B., Wallner K., Aggarwal S., et al. Treatment margins for prostate brachytherapy. Semin Urol Oncol. 18:2000;137-141.
17. Schwartz D., Billingsley K., Wallner K. Follow-up care for cancer Making the benefits equal the cost . Oncology. 14:2000;1493-1505.
18. Tralins K., Wallner K. Follow-up costs after external beam irradiation for low risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 44:1999;323-326.
19. Kaplan E.L., Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 53:1958;457-481.
20. Prestidge B.R., Bice W.S., Kiefer E.J., et al. Timing of computed tomography-based postimplant assessment following permanent transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 40:1998;1111-1115.
21. Badiozamani K., Wallner K., Sutlief S., et al. Anticipating prostatic volume changes due to prostate brachytherapy. Radiat Oncol Invest. 7:1999;360-364.
22. Deweese T.L., Shipman J.M., Dillehay L.E., et al. Sensitivity of human prostatic carcinoma cell lines to low dose rate radiation exposure. J Urol. 159:1998;591-598.
23. Armpilia C.I., Dale R.G., Coles I.P., et al. The determination of radiobiologically optimized half-lives for radionuclides used in permanent brachytherapy implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 55:2003;378-385.
24. Wang J.Z., Guerrero M., Li A. How low is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 55:2003;194-203.
25. Potters L., Cao Y., Calugaru E., et al. A comprehensive review of CT-based dosimetry parameters and biochemical control in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 50:2001;605-614.
26. Lee W.R., Roach M., Michalski J., et al. Interobserver variability in quantifiers of prostate implant adequacy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 54:2002;457-461.
27. Crook J., Milosevic M., Catton P., et al. Interobserver variation in postimplant computed tomography contouring affects quality assessment of prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 1:2002;66-73.
28. Han B, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. The effect of inter-observer differences in post-implant prostate CT image interpretation on dosimetric parameters. Med Phys 2003;30:1096-1104.
29. Gong L., Cho P., Han B., et al. Registration of prostate brachytherapy seeds with prostate anatomy for postimplant dosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 54:2002;1322-1330.
30. Smith S., Wallner K., Merrick G., et al. Interpretation of pre- versus post-implant TRUS images. Med Phys. 30:2003;920-924.
31. Han B., Wallner K., Merrick G., et al. Prostate brachytherapy seed identification on post-implant TRUS images. Med Phys. 30:2003;898-900.
32. Reed D, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al. Isodose patterns in patients with inadequate prostate brachytherapy coverage. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:1480-1487.