Following permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external-beam radiation therapy, encouraging longterm biochemical outcomes-including a morbidity profile that compares favorably with competing local modalities- have been reported for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk features.[1,2] The efficacy and morbidity of prostate brachytherapy are dependent on implant quality. Substantial differences have been reported in the incidence and clinical course of brachytherapyrelated morbidities, with many of the conflicts likely related to patient selection, technical differences in treatment planning, intraoperative technique, or variation in patient management philosophies.[3-6]
With the assimilation of brachytherapy into the conventional urooncology armamentarium, a rapidly expanding body of literature regarding patient selection and treatment approach has been reported.[1,2,7-15] Although not all patients are acceptable candidates for brachytherapy, a reliable set of pretreatment criteria for predicting implant-related morbidity has not been formulated. While most alleged contraindications to brachytherapy have been propagated with little supporting data, an increasing number of evidence-based factors contributing to radiation-related morbidity have accumulated (Table 1). Accordingly, we have summarized evidence-based vs unsubstantiated patient selection factors that affect outcome in this setting.
Despite the fact that no clear relationship exists between prostate size and increased urinary morbidity,[6,16-18] large prostate size remains a relative contraindication to brachytherapy due to technical concerns and the perception that patients with large prostates are at higher risk for acute and prolonged urinary morbidity.[13,14] Patients with a prostate volume > 50 cm3 are often counseled not to proceed with brachytherapy or are first given neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for cytoreduction.
Contrary to popular opinion, patients with large prostate glands can be implanted with acceptable morbidity.[6,16-18] In a recent study using the patient-administered Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), a validated instrument designed to evaluate patient function after prostate cancer treatment, longterm urinary function did not correlate with prostate size. On the other extreme, favorable dosimetry with minimal urinary morbidity has been reported for patients with prostate glands < 20 cm3, leading investigators to conclude that in experienced hands,postimplant dosimetric quality is independent of prostate size.[6,17,19]
In contrast to overall prostate size, transition zone volume has consistently correlated with brachytherapy-related urinary morbidity (Figure 1).[20-22] Thomas and colleagues reported that transition zone volume was the most important predictor of acute urinary retention following magnetic resonance-guided prostate brachytherapy. In addition, the transition zone index (TZI = transition zone volume/ prostate gland volume) was reported to correlate with time to normalization of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum increase in IPSS, and the need for postimplant surgical intervention. In patients receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for cytoreduction, IPSS normalization, prolonged catheter dependency, and the need for a postbrachytherapy transurethral resection (TURP) were best predicted by the percent decrease in transition zone volume. Indeed, the transition zone and its variants may have greater predictive power for prolonged urinary dysfunction and the need for subsequent intervention than any other single parameter.
International Prostate Symptom Score
Currently, no reliable preimplant criteria can be used to predict who will develop prolonged urinary retention. The role of the IPSS in predicting urinary morbidity (including urinary retention) has been studied extensively, with conflicting conclusions.[6,9,13,14,17,23-27] Although almost all brachytherapy patients develop urinary irritative/obstructive symptomatology, with 2% to 34% developing acute urinary retention,[5,6,20,23-25] only approximately 2% to 5% require a urinary catheter for more than 1 week.[6,28] Preimplant IPSS does correlate with the duration of postimplant obstructive symptomatology[6,23,26] but does not predict for long-term urinary quality of life (QOL).
In contrast to three recently published patient selection guidelines,[9,13,14] prospective studies have demonstrated little correlation between preimplant IPSS, urodynamic studies, postvoid residual urine volume, maximum flow rate, or preimplant cystourethroscopy and acute or long-term urinary function.[24,27] However, the prophylactic and prolonged use of alpha-blockers results in a return of IPSS to baseline significantly faster than is seen in patients not receiving alpha-blockers or receiving them after substantial exacerbation of urinary symptoms.[6,28] A prospective randomized trial comparing palladium (Pd)-103 with iodine (I)-125 for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤ 10 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 6, and clinical stage T1c-T2a) has shown significantly faster resolution of IPSS in the Pd-103 arm.
Pubic Arch Interference
Pubic arch interference-the obstruction of anterior needle placement insertion by a narrow pubic arch-has long been considered a relative contraindication to brachytherapy. Although recommendations have included transrectal ultrasound to evaluate the pubic arch in all patients, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for cytoreduction, and/or a nonbrachytherapy approach for patients with large prostate glands,[9,14] prostate volume is a poor predictor of pubic arch interference. By using the extended lithotomy position or veering needles around the arch, almost all patients can be successfully implanted with favorable postimplant dosimetry regardless of the degree of pubic arch interference.[30,31] In fact, data regarding the incidence of significant pubic arch interference is limited, and its clinical significance in experienced hands is highl questionable.
Transurethral Resection of the Prostate
In the early-to-mid 1990s, urinary incontinence developed in approximately 50% of patients with a history of a transurethral resection of the prostate gland (TURP) prior to implantation. In more contemporary series, however, the risk of incontinence in patients with preimplant TURP has been reported to be 6% or less, because of the adoption of peripheral source loading and limitation of the radiation dose to the TURP defect to approximately 110% of the prescription dose.[32,33] Using the EPIC instrument, patients with a preimplant TURP have been found to have urinary QOL approaching that of non- TURP brachytherapy patients. A TURP is of greater concern in the postimplant than in the preimplant setting.
After brachytherapy, approximately 2% of patients develop prolonged urinary retention, but the vast majority are eventually able to urinate without surgical intervention. If a postimplant TURP or transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) is necessary, it should be delayed for as long as possible. Significant urinary morbidity has been demonstrated in approximately 50% of patients undergoing a postimplant TURP, and patients with a pre- or postimplant TURP have an especially high risk of urinary incontinence.
To minimize postbrachytherapy TURP-related incontinence, Stone and Stock have recommended preservation of the bladder neck at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions, with minimal cautery to maintain sufficient prostatic urethral blood supply. Although it has been suggested that a safe minimum time to perform a TURP/TUIP is 2 months for Pd-103 and 6 months for I-125, we discourage surgical intervention for at least the first 12 months following brachytherapy. Because most patients with brachytherapy-related urinary obstruction will eventually spontaneously void, a TURP/TUIP should be approached with extreme caution and only after substantial time has transpired.[24,35]
Median Lobe Hyperplasia
Median lobe hyperplasia (the protrusion of hypertrophied prostate tissue into the bladder) has been reported to be a relative contraindication to brachytherapy because of concerns for an increased risk of postimplant urinary morbidity and/or technical difficulties encountered while implanting intravesical tissue.
In a small contemporary series, Wallner and colleagues reported complete dosimetric coverage of the median lobe in all patients. However, 25% of patients developed prolonged postimplant urinary retention, and additional patients developed prolonged IPSS elevation. Although median lobe hypertrophy should not be considered an absolute contraindication to brachytherapy, patients with this condition should be approached with caution. It is conceivable that preimplant resection of the intravesical component could reduce the incidence of brachytherapy-related morbidity.
Prostatitis has been regarded as a relative contraindication to brachytherapy despite the lack of supporting documentation. In a recent series, however, investigators found no relationship between the presence or severity of prostatitis and the incidence of urinary retention or prolonged IPSS elevation following implantation.
Patient age may be a stronger predictor of prostate cancer curability than are differences in preimplant PSA. Older patients have been reported to be at increased risk for extracapsular extension, higher Gleason scores, and a greater propensity for distant metastases.[38,39] Although clinicians have been reluctant to recommend brachytherapy for younger patients, outstanding biochemical outcomes (with a median PSA < 0.1 ng/mL) have been reported for hormone-naive men ≤ 62 years of age undergoing brachytherapy.[40,41] On the other extreme, older patients may tolerate brachytherapy as well as younger men.[6,17,42] Patient age alone should not influence treatment decisions.
Obesity presents substantial procedural difficulties for radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiation therapy, but only relatively minor problems for brachytherapy, and as such, is not a contraindication. Favorable dosimetric, biochemical, and QOL outcomes have been demonstrated for patients with grade II (body mass index [BMI] = 30-34.9 kg/m2) and III (BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m2) obesity who undergo brachytherapy.
A correlation between cigarette smoking and aggressive prostate cancer and/or prostate cancer-related deaths has been reported. Consistent with these findings, tobacco consumption correlated with a trend for poorer biochemical progression-free survival following permanent prostate brachytherapy. In addition, tobacco may exacerbate brachytherapyinduced morbidity.
In one recent study, although the absolute differences were small, tobacco was the strongest predictor for adverse late urinary QOL including adverse changes in the EPIC-determined urinary-specific subscales of function, incontinence, irritation/obstruction, bother, and IPSS. Evaluation of late rectal function using the Rectal Function Assessment Score (R-FAS) demonstrated that tobacco was a statistically significant predictor for diminished late rectal function. Accordingly, tobacco consumption may be a weak contraindication to brachytherapy, but its role in treatment selection for radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy has not been clarified.
Although diabetes mellitus may not adversely affect late urinary or rectal function following brachytherapy,[17,42] it is a significant risk factor for brachytherapy-related erectile dysfunction, with a 100% incidence as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Some have considered inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, and regional enteritis (Crohn's disease) to be relative contraindications to radiation therapy. However, Grann and Wallner reported no increased risk of gastrointestinal morbidity in such patients undergoing I-125 brachytherapy.
Adverse Pathologic Features
High Gleason score, perineural invasion, and extensive tumor in the biopsy specimen have correlated with a higher likelihood of extraprostatic cancer extension, lending to the perception that patients with high-risk features may not be adequately treated with brachytherapy.[8,9,12] In striking contrast to this hypothesis, multiple brachytherapy series have demonstrated favorable biochemical outcomes for hormone-naive patients at high risk of extraprostatic extension.[46-53]
Although some patients with adverse pathologic features have subclinical distant metastatic disease at diagnosis, a high 5-year cause-specific survival has been reported in hormone-naive patients using either dose-escalated high-dose-rate brachytherapy or external-beam radiation therapy.[53,54] These findings are in sharp contrast to the assumption that most patients with adverse pathologic features have subclinical distant metastases at diagnosis. Instead, an aggressive locoregional approach that includes generous periprostatic brachytherapy treatment margins and/or the addition of supplemental external-beam therapy can result in a high likelihood of cancer eradication (Figure 2). Consistent with this finding, an evaluation of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials revealed an improved 5-year overall survival for patients with higher Gleason scores who received higher external-beam doses.
Because pathologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens has demonstrated that almost all cases of extraprostatic extension are limited to within 5 mm of the prostatic capsule, high-quality brachytherapy with or without supplemental external-beam radiotherapy should sterilize extraprostatic extension. The relative resiliency of brachytherapy to adverse pathologic features, including percentpositive biopsies, is likely a result of intraprostatic dose escalation with therapeutic radiation dose delivery to the periprosatic region.[47,48]
1. Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM:
Permanent interstitial brachytherapy for the
management of carcinoma of the prostate
gland. J Urol 169:1643-1652, 2003.
2. Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM:
Minimizing prostate brachytherapy-related
morbidity. Urology 62:786-792, 2003.
3. Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM, et
al: Management of sexual dysfunction after
prostate brachytherapy. Oncology 17:52-62,
4. Crook J, McLean M, Catton C, et al: Factors
influencing risk of acute urinary retention
after TRUS-guided permanent prostate seed
implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
5. Han BH, Demel KC, Wallner K, et al:
Patient reported complications after prostate
brachytherapy. J Urol 166:953-957, 2001.
6. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Lief JH, et al:
Temporal resolution of urinary morbidity following
prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 47:121-128, 2000.
7. Nag S, Beyer D, Friedland J, et al: American
Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations
for transperineal permanent
brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 44:789-799, 1999.
8. 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,
9. Hakenberg OW, Wirth MP, Hermann T,
et al: Recommendations for the treatment of
localized prostate cancer by permanent interstitial
brachytherapy. Urol Int 70:15-20,
10. Blasko JC, Mate T, Sylvester JE, et al:
Brachytherapy for carcinoma of the prostate:
Techniques, patient selection, and clinical outcomes.
Semin Radiat Oncol 12:81-94, 2002.
11. Cha CM, Potters L, Ashley R, et al: Isotope
selection for patients undergoing prostate
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
12. Crook J, Lukka H, Klotz L, et al: Systematic
overview of the evidence for
brachytherapy in clinically localized prostate
cancer. CMAJ 164:975-981, 2001.
13. Ash D, Flynn A, Battermann J, et al:
ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on
permanent seed implantation for localized prostate
cancer. Radiother Oncol 57:315-321, 2000.
14. Pedley ID: Transperineal interstitial permanent
prostate brachytherapy for carcinoma
of the prostate. Surg Oncol 11:25-34, 2002.
15. Pisansky TM, Blute ML, Hillman DW,
et al: The relevance of prostatectomy findings
for brachytherapy selection in patients with
localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 95:513-
16. Stone NN, Stock RG: Prostate
brachytherapy in patients with prostate volumes
≤ 50 cm3: Dosimetric analysis of implant quality.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:1199-1204,
17. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Long-term urinary quality of life following
permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:454-461, 2003.
18. Sherertz T, Wallner K, Wang H, et al:
Long-term urinary function after transperineal
brachytherapy for patients with large prostate
glands. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:1241-
19. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et
al: The effect of prostate size and isotope selection
on dosimetric quality following permanent
seed implantation. Tech Urol 7:233-240,
20. Thomas MD, Cormack R, Tempany CM,
et al: Identifying the predictors of acute urinary
retention following magnetic resonanceguided
prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 47:905-908, 2000.
21. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW,
et al: The relationship between the transition
zone index of the prostate gland and urinary
morbidity after brachytherapy. Urology 57:524-
22. Hinerman-Mulroy A, Merrick GS, Butler
WM, et al: Hormone-induced volume
changes in the transition zone predict urinary
morbidity after prostate brachytherapy. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, in press.
23. Terk MD, Stock RG, Stone NN: Identification
of patients at increased risk for prolonged
urinary retention following radioactive
seed implantation of the prostate. J Urol
24. Landis P, Wallner K, Locke J, et al: Late
urinary function after prostate brachytherapy.
Brachytherapy 1:21-26, 2002.
25. Gelblum DY, Potters L, Ashley R, et al:
Urinary morbidity following ultrasound-guided
transperineal prostate seed implantation. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:59-67, 1999.
26. Bucci J, Morris WJ, Keyes M, et al: Predictive
factors of urinary retention following
prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 53:91-98, 2002.
27. Gray G, Wallner K, Roof J, et al:
Cystourethroscopic findings before and after
prostate brachytherapy. Tech Urol 6:109-111,
28. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Prophylactic versus therapeutic alpha
blockers following permanent prostate
brachytherapy. Urology 60:650-655, 2002.
29. 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
30. Bellon J, Wallner K, Ellis W, et al: Use
of pelvic CT scanning to evaluate pubic arch
interference of transperineal prostate
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
31. Wallner KE, Blasko JC, Dattoli MJ (eds):
Prostate Brachytherapy Made Complicated.
Seattle, SmartMedicine Press, 2001.
32. Wallner K, Lee H, Waserman S, et al:
Low risk of urinary incontinence following
prostate brachytherapy in patients with a prior
TURP. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:565-
33. 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-
34. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Effect of transurethral resection on urinary
quality of life after permanent prostate
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
35. Stone NN, Stock RG: Complications
following permanent prostate brachytherapy.
Eur Urol 41:427-433, 2002.
36. Wallner KE, Smathers S, Sutlief S, et al:
Prostate brachytherapy in patients with median
lobe hyperplasia. Int J Cancer 90:199-205,
37. Hughes S, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al:
Pre-existing histologic evidence of prostatitis
is unrelated to post-implant urinary morbidity.
Radiat Oncol Investig 96(suppl):79-82, 2002.
38. Carter HB, Epstein JI, Partin AW: Influence
of age and prostate-specific antigen on
the chance of curable prostate cancer among
men with nonpalpable disease. Urology
39. Herold DM, Hanlon AL, Movsas B, et
al: Age-related prostate cancer metastases.
Urology 51:985-990, 1998.
40. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Lief JH, et al:
Five-year biochemical outcome after prostate
brachytherapy for hormone-naive men ≤ 62
years of age. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
41. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Permanent interstitial brachytherapy in
younger patients with clinically organ-confined
prostate cancer. Submitted.
42. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Late rectal function after prostate
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
43. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Permanent prostate brachytherapy-induced
morbidity in patients with grade II and
III obesity. Urology 60:104-108, 2002.
44. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: The effect of cigarette smoking on biochemical
outcome following permanent prostate
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 58:1056-1062, 2004.
45. Grann A, Wallner K: Prostate
brachytherapy in patients with inflammatory
bowel disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
46. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW,
et al: Perineural invasion is not predictive of
biochemical outcome following prostate
brachytherapy. Cancer J 7:404-412, 2001.
47. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW,
et al: The relationship between percent positive
biopsies and biochemical outcome following
permanent interstitial brachytherapy for
clinically organ-confined carcinoma of the
prostate gland. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
48. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Prognostic significance of percent positive
biopsies in clinically organ-confined prostate
cancer treated with permanent prostate
brachytherapy with or without supplemental
external beam radiation. Cancer J 10:54-60,
49. Blasko JC, Grimm PD, Sylvester JE, et
al: Palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate
carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
50. 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 8:322-327, 2002.
51. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW,
et al: Does hormonal manipulation in conjunction
with permanent interstitial brachytherapy,
with or without supplemental external beam
irradiation, improve the biochemical outcome
for me with intermediate or high-risk prostate
cancer? BJU Int 91:23-29, 2003.
52. 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.
53. Martinez AA, Gustafson F, Gonazalez
J, et al: Dose escalation using conformal highdose-
rate brachytherapy improves outcome in
unfavorable prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 53:316-327, 2002.
54. Valicenti R, Lu J, Pilepich M, et al: Survival
advantage from higher-dose radiation
therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer
treated in the Radiation Therapy Oncology
Group trials. J Clin Oncol 18:2740-2746,
55. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Extracapsular radiation dose distribution
after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Am J
Clin Oncol 26:178-189, 2003.
56. Davis BJ, Pisansky TM, Wilson TM, et
al: The radial distance of extraprostatic extension
of prostate carcinoma: Implications for
prostate brachytherapy. Cancer 85:2630-2637,
57. Moul JW, Connelly RR, Perahia B, et
al: The contemporary value of pretreatment
prostatic acid phosphatase to predict pathological
stage and recurrence in radical prostatectomy
cases. J Urol 159:935-940, 1998.
58. Han M, Piantadosi S, Zahurak ML, et
al: Serum acid phosphatase level and biochemical
recurrence following radical prostatectomy
for men with clinically localized prostate cancer.
Urology 57:707-711, 2001.
59. Roach M, Lu J, Pilepich MV, et al: Longterm
survival after radiotherapy alone: Radiation
Therapy Oncology Group prostate cancer
trials. J Urol 161:864-868, 1999.
60. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: The role of enzymatic prostatic acid phosphatase
in the clinical staging evaluation of
patients with newly diagnosed, untreated prostate
61. Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al: I-
125 versus Pd-103 for low risk prostate cancer:
Preliminary PSA outcomes from a prospective
randomized multicenter trial. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 57:1297-1303, 2003.
62. Lee L, Stock RG, Stone NN: Role of
hormonal therapy in the management of intermediate-
to high-risk prostate cancer treated
with permanent radioactive seed implantation.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:444-452, 2002.
63. Barker J, Wallner K, Merrick G: Hematuria
after prostate brachytherapy. Urology
64. Ghaly M, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al:
The effect of supplemental beam radiation on
prostate brachytherapy-related morbidity: Morbidity
outcomes from two prospective randomized
multicenter trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 55:1288-1293, 2003.
65. Potters L, Torre T, Ashley R, et al: Examining
the role of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation
in patients undergoing prostate
brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:1187-1192,
66. Merrick GS, Butler WM, Wallner KE,
et al: Influence of hormonal therapy on late
rectal function after permanent prostate
brachytherapy with or without supplemental
external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 58:68-84, 2004.