Radical prostatectomy and
brachytherapy are two commonly
employed methods of
treating localized prostate cancer. Due
to a lack of randomized trials, the
selection of optimal treatment for
these patients remains controversial.
A wealth of single-institution data is
available, but comparisons are difficult
because of differences in patient
selection and outcome end points. This
has resulted in a frustrating situation
for patients and physicians alike.
A number of articles have attempted
to interpret these data, and two
different conclusions have emerged.
Several authors have concluded that
the available evidence indicates both
treatments achieve approximately
equal results and should be offered to
patients with low-risk disease.[1,2]
Other physicians have concluded that
in the absence of randomized trials,
radical prostatectomy should be considered
superior to brachytherapy and
remain the standard of care.[3,4] The
primary reasons cited by these authors
for continuing to regard radical
prostatectomy as superior to brachytherapy
are listed in Table 1.[3-7] In
this review, we will address the latest results of treatment with each modality
and attempt to draw conclusions
regarding their relative merits.
Results of Treatment
Selection of Series
A Pubmed search was utilized in
an attempt to identify all available
series reporting results for transrectal
ultrasound (TRUS)-guided interstitial
low-dose-rate ("seed") brachytherapy
and radical prostatectomy in the
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era.
Updates published in abstract form
were used when available. For the
sake of comparison, only series that
reported PSA-based outcomes were
considered. Series were selected for
analysis if they included data for at
least 100 total patients in order to
ensure adequate experience with the
Authors generally agree that an
accurate comparison of treatment
results can only be achieved if the
patients compared have similar prognostic
factors.[1,3,8] Therefore, series
are presented here only if they reported
results according to standard pretreatment
prognostic factors. The
definitions of risk groups used are
shown in Table 2.
Finally, the importance of adequate
length of follow-up has been demonstrated.[
3,9,10] Therefore, only series
with a median follow-up greater than
3 years are presented. We have attempted
to include the latest update
of each series. In the case of groups
that have published results numerous
times, we have used their latest report
that segregates the patients based on
Biochemical Disease-Free Survival
in Brachytherapy Series
Tables 3, 4, and 5 list the results
of available brachytherapy series
for patients with low-, intermediate-,
and high-risk disease, respectively.[
1,2,11-22] Reports by Merrick,[
23,24] Singh, and Blank
are not included because they had either
fewer than 100 patients or less
than 3 years median follow-up. Results
published by Koutrouvelis are
not shown because the implants were
performed via a nonstandard technique.[
27] The results of all of the
above series are consistent with, or
superior to, the results presented in
these tables. Finally, the 32-patient
series from Dr. Holm-the first
transperineal implants ever reported,
last published in 1991-which reported
poorer results, was also excluded.
The majority of the series did not
include any patients who underwent
hormonal manipulation in order to rule
out a possible confounding effect.
Zelefsky et al did include 13% of
patients who underwent androgen
deprivation for a mean duration of
2 months. Patients in the Dattoli,
Lederman, and Kollmeier papers
received hormonal ablation in 30%,
16%, and 60% of the cases, respectively.
D'Amico reported patients who
received androgen deprivation separately,
and they are not shown here. In all
cases, hormonal ablation was of short
duration (3 to 6 months).
Of note, the series from Ragde et
al clearly presents the worst published
results for low-risk patients
treated with brachytherapy. These
were among the first transperineal implants
performed in the United States
(treated from 1987 to 1989), thus representing
the learning curve for this
group, as well as a "discovery curve"
for this procedure, during which time
important refinements in technique
and dosimetry were made. Improvement
in technique, and therefore in
results, should be expected with increasing
experience, and this is demonstrated
in a paper by Grimm et
al. These investigators compared
their data from 1986 to 1987 with
their data from 1988 to 1989, and
demonstrated an improvement in
long-term biochemical no evidence
of disease (bNED) rate from 66% in
the 1986 to 1987 cohort to 87% in the
1988 to 1989 cohort, despite very similar
Once each table was completed, a
weighted average of bNED rates for
each prognostic group was calculated
using data from all of the included
series. The percentage bNED at
5 years in each series was multiplied
by the number of patients in that study,
and these results were added together
and then divided by the total number
of patients in the risk group. The data
from Sylvester et al were not used
in these calculations, as the number
of patients in each risk group was not
Biochemical Disease-Free Survival
in Radical Prostatectomy Series
Tables 6, 7, and 8 present the available
data from major series of radical
prostatectomy for patients with low-,
intermediate-, and high-risk features.[
1,2,4,17,30-34] The series from
the University of California, Los Angeles,[
35] is not presented because it
did not stratify results by pretreatment
prognostic factors. Barry et
al did not report biochemical failure
as an end point.
Because several of these series do
not report results stratified by risk
group, but rather, by individual prognostic
factors, the data for those series
are presented for patients who had features
characteristic of that group; ie,
patients with a Gleason score of 7 are
presented in the intermediate-risk table.
It should be noted that this may
have a slight negative effect on the
outcome of patients in the low-risk table,
because some of the subset of patients
who had a PSA < 10 ng/mL
would be expected to have a Gleason
score of 7 or higher, and vice versa.
Data for patients stratified according to
their multifactor risk group is presented
The results from the University of
Pennsylvania, Baylor, Cleveland
Clinic, William Beaumont
Hospital, and Urology Health
Center are derived from data published
in papers that compared radical
prostatectomy to radiation therapy.
The Johns Hopkins group has published
bNED rates for 5 and 10
years; both are reported here, the
5-year rate to allow comparison to
other series, and the 10-year rate to
show long-term results. Because many
of the surgical series do not provide
the number of patients in each prognostic
group, a useful weighted average
could not be calculated.
1. D'Amico A, Whittington R, Malkowicz
S, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical
prostatectomy, external beam radiaiton therapy,
or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically
localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969-974,
2. Sharkey J, Cantor A, Solc Z, et al:
Brachytherapy versus radical prostatectomy in
patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.
Curr Urol Rep 3:250-257, 2002.
3. Walsh P: Radical prostatectomy for localized
prostate cancer provides durable cancer
control with excellent quality of life: A
structured debate. J Urol 163:1802-1807, 2000.
4. Catalona WJ, Ramos CG, Carvalhal GF:
Contemporary results of anatomic radical prostatectomy.
CA Cancer J Clin 49:282-296, 1999.
5. Walsh PC: Is Interstitial Radiotherapy
Effective in Curing Prostate Cancer? Available
at the James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute
at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
website, http://urology.jhu.edu. Accessed June
6. Mixing Apples and Oranges: Using Two
Standards to Determine Cure with Surgery and
Radiation Therapy. Available at the James
Buchanan Brady Urological Institute at Johns
Hopkins Medical Institutions website, http://
urology.jhu.edu. Prostate Cancer Update, Winter
2003. Accessed June 9, 2004.
7. Gretzer MB, Trock BJ, Han M, et al: A
critical analysis of the interpretation of biochemical
failure in surgically treated patients
using the American Society for Therapeutic
Radiation and Oncology criteria. J Urol 168(4
pt 1):1419-1422, 2002.
8. Polascik T, Pound C, DeWeese T, et al:
Comparison of radical prostatectomy and
idodine 125 interstitial radiotherapy for the
treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer:
A 7-year biochemical (PSA) progression
analysis. Urology 51:884-889, 1998.
9. Amling CL, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, et
al: Long-term hazard of progression after radical
prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate
cancer: Continued risk of biochemical failure
after 5 years. J Urol 164:101-105, 2000.
10. Vicini FA, Kestin LL, Martinez AA: The
importance of adequate follow-up in defining
treatment success after external-beam irradiation
for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 45:553-561, 1999.
11. Zelefsky M, 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 47:1261-1266, 2000.
12. Lederman G, Cavanaugh W, Albert P, et
al: Retrospective stratification of a consecutive
cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with
a combined regimen of external-beam radiotherapy
and brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 49:1297-1303, 2001.
13. Kollmeier M, Stock R, Stone N: Biochemical
outcomes after prostate brachytherapy
with 5-year minimal follow-up: Importance of
patient selection and implant quality. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:645-653, 2003.
14. Ragde H, Korb L, Elgamal A, et al:
Modern prostate brachytherapy. Prostate
specific antigen results in 219 patients with up
to 12 years of observed follow-up. Cancer
15. Grimm P, Blasko J, Sylvester J, et al:
10-year biochemical (prostate-specific antigen)
control of prostate cancer with (125)I
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
16. Sylvester JE, Blasko JC, Grimm PD, et
al: Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival
functions following brachytherapy with external
beam radiotherapy for patients with localized
prostate cancer: The Seattle experience.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54(2 suppl):38,
17. Stokes SH: Comparison of biochemical
disease-free survival of patients with localized
carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical
prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided
radioactive seed implantation, or definitive
external beam irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 47:129-136, 2000.
18. Kwok Y, DiBiase S, Amin P, et al: Risk
group stratification in patients undergoing permanent
(125)I prostate brachytherapy as
monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
19. Critz F, Williams W, Levinson A, et al:
Simultaneous irradiation for prostate cancer:
Intermediate results with modern techniques.
J Urol 164(3 pt 1):738-741, 2000.
20. Blasko J, Grimm P, Sylvester J, et al:
Palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:839-
21. Brachman D, Thomas T, Hilbe J, et al:
Failure-free survival following brachytherapy
alone or external beam irradiation alone for T1-
2 prostate tumors in 2222 patients: Results from
a single practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
22. Dattoli M, Wallner K, True L, et al:
Long-term outcomes after treatment with external
beam radiation therapy and palladium
103 for patients with higher risk prostate carcinoma:
Influence of prostatic acid phosphatase.
Cancer 97:979-983, 2003.
23. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW,
et al: Five-year biochemical outcome following
permanent interstitial brachytherapy for
clinical T1-T3 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 51:41-48, 2001.
24. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Lief JH, et al:
Biochemical outcome for hormone-naive patients
with high-risk prostate cancer managed
with permanent interstitial brachytherapy and
supplemental external-beam radiation. Cancer
J Sci Am 8:322-327, 2002.
25. Singh A, Zelefsky MJ, Raben A, et al:
Combined 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy
and transperineal Pd-103 permanent
implantation for patients with intermediate and
unfavorable risk prostate cancer. Int J Cancer
26. Blank L, Gonzalez D, De Reijke T, et al:
Brachytherapy with transperineal (125) Iodine
seeds for localized prostate cancer. Radiother
Oncol 57:307-313, 2000.
27. Koutrouvelis P, Gillenwater J, Lailas N,
et al: High and intermediate risk prostate cancer
treated with three-dimensional computed
tomography-guided brachytherapy: 2-8 year
follow-up. Radiother Oncol 67:303-308, 2003.
28. Iversen P, Rasmussen F, Holm HH:
Long-term results of ultrasonically guided implantation
of 125-I seeds combined with external
irradiation in localized prostatic cancer.
Scand J Urol Nephrol 138(suppl):109-115,
29. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz
SB, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical
prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy,
or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically
localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969-974,
30. Vicini FA, Martinez A, Hanks G, et al:
An interinstitutional and interspecialty comparison
of treatment outcome data for patients
with prostate carcinoma based on predefined
prognostic categories and minimum follow-up.
Cancer 95:2126-2135, 2002.
31. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, et al:
Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-
specific survival following anatomic radical
retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Clin North
Am 28:555-565, 2001.
32. Kupelian PA, Elshaikh M, Reddy C, et
al: Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies
for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-
specific antigen era: A large single-institution
experience with radical prostatectomy
and external beam radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol
33. Paulson DF, Vieweg JWG: Radical
perineal prostatectomy: A model for evaluating
local response of prostate therapy. Crit Rev
Oncol Hematol 43:135-139, 2002.
34. Blute ML, Bergstraith EJ, Iocca A, et al:
Use of gleason score, prostate-specific antigen,
seminal vesicle and margin status to predict
biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.
J Urol 165:119-125, 2001.
35. Stein A, DeKernion JB, Smith RB, et al:
Prostate specific antigen levels after radical
prostatectomy in patients with organ confined
and locally extensive prostate cancer. J Urol
36. Barry MJ, Albertsen PC, Bagshaw MA,
et al: Outcomes for men with clinically
nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma managed
with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy,
or expectant management. Cancer
37. Ramos C, Carvalhal G, Smith D, et al:
Retrospective comparison of radical retropubic
prostatectomy and 125 Iodine
brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J
Urol 161:1212-1215, 1999.
38. Ragde H, Elgamal A, Snow P, et al: Tenyear
disease free survival after transperineal
sonography-guided iodine-125 brachytherapy
with or without 45-gray external beam irradiation
in the treatment of patients with clinically
localized, low to high Gleason grade prostate
carcinoma. Cancer 83:989-1001, 1998.
39. Han M, Partin AW, Piantadosi S, et al:
Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival
following radical prostatectomy for clinically
localized prostate cancer. J Urol 166:416-
40. Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et
al: Defining prostate specific antigen progression
after radical prostatectomy: What is the
most appropriate cut point? J Urol 165:1146-
41. Kuban DA, Thames HD, Levy LB: Radiation
for prostate cancer: Use of biochemical
failure as an endpoint following radiotherapy.
World J Urol 21:253-264, 2003.
42. Kattan MW, Fearn PA, Leibel SA, et al:
The definition of biochemical failure in patients
treated with definitive radiotherapy. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 48:1469-1474, 2000.
43. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Prostate-specific antigen spikes after permanent
prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 54:450-456, 2002.
44. Cox JD, Grignon DJ, Kaplan RS, et al:
Consensus statement: Guidelines for PSA following
radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 37:1035-1041, 1997.
45. Hanlon AL, Hanks GE: Scrutiny of the
ASTRO consensus definition of biochemical
failure in irradiated prostate cancer patients
demonstrates its usefulness and robustness. Int
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:559-566, 2000.
46. Horwitz EM, Vicini FA, Ziaja EL, et al:
The correlation between the ASTRO consensus
panel definition of biochemical failure and
clinical outcome for patients with prostate cancer
treated with external beam irradiation. Int
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:267-272, 1998.
47. Taylor JMG, Griffith KA, Sandler HM:
Definitions of biochemical failure in prostate
cancer following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 50:1212-1219, 2001.
48. Horwitz E, Uzzo R, Hanlon A, et al:
Modifying the American Society for Therapeutic
Radiology and Oncology definition of biochemical
failure to minimize the influence of
backdating in patients with prostate cancer
treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation
therapy alone. J Urol 169:2157-2159, 2003.
49. Shekarriz B, Upadhyay J, Wood DP: Intraoperative,
perioperative, and long-term complications
of radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin
North Am 28:639-653, 2001.
50. Stone NN, Stock RG: Complications
following permanent prostate brachytherapy.
Eur Urol 41:427-433, 2002.
51. Inrocci L, Slob AK, Levendag PC:
Sexual (dys)function after radiotherapy for
prostate cancer: A review. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 52:681-693, 2002.
52. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, et
al: Urinary and sexual function after radical
prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate
cancer: The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study.
JAMA 283:354-360, 2000.
53. Kao T-C, Cruess DF, Garner D, et al:
Multicenter patient self-reporting questionnaire
on impotence, incontinence and stricture after
radical prostatectomy. J Urol 163:858, 2000.
54. Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC, et
al: Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy
for prostate cancer: Results from the
Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer
Inst 92:1582-1592, 2000.
55. Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE,
et al: Potency, continence and complication
rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic
prostatectomies. J Urol 162:433-438, 1999.
56. Potters L, Toore T, Fearn PA, et al: Potency
after permanent prostate brachytherapy
for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 50:1235-1242, 2001.
57. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW,
et al: Erectile function after permanent prostate
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 52:893-902, 2002.
58. Zippe CD, Kedia AW, Kedia K, et al:
Treatment of erectile dysfunction after radical
prostatectomy with sildenafil citrate (Viagra).
Urology 52:963-966, 1998.
59. Begg C, Reidel E, Bach P, et al: Variations
in morbidity after radical prostatectomy.
N Engl J Med 346:1138-1144, 2002.
60. Talcott JA, Clark JA, Stark PC, et al:
Long-term treatment related complications of
brachytherapy for early prostate cancer: A survey
of patients previously treated. J Urol
61. Stone NN, Ratnow ER, Stock RG: Prior
transurethral resection does not increase morbidity
following real-time ultrasound-guided
prostate seed implantation. Tech Urol 6:123-
62. Fichtner J, Gillitzer R, Melchior S, et al:
Perineal complications following radical prostatectomy.
Aktuelle Urologie 34:223-225, 2003.
63. Dahm P, Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, et
al: A longitudinal assessment of bowel related
symptoms and fecal incontinence following
radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol
64. Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al: Longterm
results with immediate androgen suppression
and external irradiation in patients with
locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC
study): A phase III randomized trial. Lancet
65. Schellhammer PF: Interview with Dr.
Schellhammer. Prostate Cancer Update 2:12-
66. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen
F, et al: A randomized trial comparing radical
prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early
prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 347:781-789,