Localized prostate cancer
may be treated with permanent isotope implants, used either as
monotherapy or combined with external-beam irradiation as curative
therapy. Permanent source brachytherapy has evolved from a surgically
based retropubic technique to todays closed, ultrasound-guided,
interstitial transperineal approach using either iodine-125 (125I)
or palladium-103 (103Pd).
The therapeutic goal in patients with localized prostate cancer is to
achieve local control and disease-free survival, defined as
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse-free survival. Therefore,
prostate brachytherapy is a therapeutic alternative to three-dimensional
high-dose external-beam radiation or radical prostatectomy for
patients with localized prostate cancer.
Recent data with follow-up of 9 and 10 years confirm that
transperineal implantation offers excellent PSA relapse-free survival
rates,[1,2] however, as with any treatment modality, there is
considerable variation in how brachytherapy is being performed. A
recent review of prostate brachytherapy series confirms that there is
no consistency in the implant technique used or how the data are
reported. To help standardize this procedure, the American
Brachytherapy Society has published clinical and dosimetric
guidelines, which, when adhered to, will provide uniform treatment
parameters and methods for reporting data.[4,5] This article
describes current state-of-the-art permanent prostate brachytherapy.
Experience with retropubic 125I brachytherapy as
monotherapy was gained between 1970 and approximately 1988. Thus,
these data were obtained prior to the PSA era, and both the staging
and grading systems used are now considered to be obsolete. In
addition, the definitions of local control and treatment success at
that time differ considerably from todays more stringent
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology (ASTRO) consensus
definitions using consecutive PSA values. The clinical definition
of local control varied considerably in publications from
that era, but grade and stage were consistently identified as
significant predictors of local control.
For early-stage, low-grade tumors, local control rates reported at
the time for retropubic prostate brachytherapy were similar to those
for external-beam irradiation. In patients with disease of higher
grade and stage, the outcomes with prostate brachytherapy were
inferior to those achieved with external-beam radiation therapy.
Nonetheless, much information can be extrapolated from these series,
which can provide guidance for the current technique of transperineal
Dose-Response or Implant Quality
An advantage of brachytherapy is its ability to provide a prescribed
conformal radiation dose to a defined target volume. Postimplant
dosimetry can be performed as a means of measuring the dose-response,
or quality of the implant. However, the technology of the time did
not permit accurate delineation of the prostate volume relative to
the implanted volume, and, therefore, these early series did not
provide clear-cut dose-response data. Several series that attempted
to analyze the dose delivered by an implant confirmed that local
control is a function of dose. Inferior local control rates were
associated with doses to the prostate below 100 to 140 Gy.[9-12]
A recent analysis of 110 patients from the original Yale series of
retropubic brachytherapy was carried out using modern,
three-dimensional CT-based dosimetric parameters; this analysis
provides new insights into the retropubic experience. Several
dosimetric parameters were evaluated to determine cutoff points that
statistically separated the parameters according to local
recurrence-free survival. This analysis demonstrated a twofold
increase in 10-year recurrence-free survival between the favorable
and unfavorable dosimetry parameters. More importantly, a comparison
of Yales inadequate implants identified a group of
patients with local control rates similar to those of other series
from this era that reported poor outcomes.[7,14]
One of the main reasons for poor implant dosimetry during this time
period was inadequate imaging technology for the volume-averaging
technique of determining 125I activity. Other factors
include a poor delivery system, resulting in the bunching together of
individual seeds centrally within the prostate; poor patient
selection; and differences in technique among institutions and physicians.
Conclusions From the Retropubic 125I Experience
Although these variables cannot be evaluated readily from published
data from the retropubic era, certain conclusions can be drawn from
this experience. First, implant dosimetry, reported either as implant
quality or delivered dose, clearly has an impact on local control.
Second, stage and tumor grade also affect local control and
disease-free survival rates. An understanding of the retropubic data
within this context provided the foundation for the evolution of
prostate brachytherapy in the late 1980s and 90s.
With the advent of the transrectal ultrasound probe as a means for
visualizing the prostate, Holm et al developed the transperineal
approach to prostate brachytherapy. This closed technique allows
for placement of needles into the prostate, guided by real-time
ultrasound imaging, while the patient is in the lithotomy position.
The isotope is then introduced through the needles directly into the prostate.
In the United States, Drs. Blasko and Ragde from Seattle pioneered
this approach to brachytherapy in the early 1990s. A conceptually
similar approach using computed tomographic (CT) scans instead of
ultrasonography was developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center (MSKCC) around the same time. In the intervening 10 years,
the number of patients treated with ultrasound-guided transperineal
interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) has grown
exponentially; an estimated 35,000 implants were performed in 1999.
Some believe that TIPPB with advanced biplane-transrectal
ultrasonography, perineal guidance systems, treatment planning
computers, and postimplant CT scanning has enhanced our ability to
perform an adequate implant. As such, permanent
brachytherapy yields associated biochemical control rates that are
comparable to those of radical prostatectomy or high-dose
three-dimensional external-beam irradiation in appropriately selected
patients. However, an American Brachytherapy Society review of the
practices of physicians who perform prostate brachytherapy uncovered
tremendous variation in indications, technique, treatment regimens,
The main areas of controversy include the selection of patients for
monotherapy or combined therapy with external-beam irradiation, the
role of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation, the selection of 125I
or 103Pd, the type of preimplant planning and technique,
and the type and timing of postimplant dosimetry.
Despite these controversies, several published studies have assessed
outcomes following TIPPB at institutions reporting biochemical
control rates (Table 1). According
to these studies, 4- to 10-year biochemical control rates range from
63% to 92%.[1,2,18-26] Because of differences among the studies with
respect to patient characteristics, median follow-up, and the methods
of defining outcomes, a meta-analysis of these data cannot be performed.
Potters et al reported risk-profile outcomes of a cohort of 717
patients treated with TIPPB. Patients were grouped based on a
pretreatment PSA £ 10 ng/mL and
Gleason score £ 6. Patients who
met both criteria were classified as a favorable-risk group (N = 303)
and had a 93% 5-year PSA relapse-free survival rate (ASTRO
definition; see Figure 1).
Individuals who fulfilled one criterion were considered at
intermediate risk (N = 268), with a 5-year PSA relapse-free survival
of 77%. Those who did not satisfy either criterion were classified as
unfavorable risk (N = 146) and had a 62% 5-year PSA relapse-free
Using identical risk definitions and a modification of the ASTRO
definition of PSA relapse-free survival (two consecutive rises),
Blasko et al reported outcomes in 230 patients treated with 103Pd
monotherapy. Favorable-risk patients had a 94% 5-year PSA
relapse-free survival rate, while the intermediate- and
unfavorable-risk patients had PSA relapse-free survival rates of 82%
and 65%, respectively (P = .04; see Table
Prestidge et al have reported that biochemical control rates
correlate with postbrachytherapy biopsy rates. Their data indicate a
close correlation between PSA control and biopsy results, with 80% of
biopsied patients having a negative result. However, the
significance of a negative or positive postimplant biopsy result
Currently, a multi-institutional trial is underway, with strict
reporting methodology, to assess TIPPB in early-stage prostate
cancer. In addition, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) is
conducting a feasibility trial of this modality, also with strict
quality control parameters. Until prospective data become available,
variations in treatment techniques for TIPPB will appear in the literature.
1. Blasko J, Grimm P, Sylvester J, et al: Palladium-103 brachytherapy
for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 43:839-850, 2000.
2. Ragde H, Elgamal AA, Snow PB, et al: Ten-year disease-free
survival after transperineal sonography-guided iodine-125
brachytherapy with or without 45-Gy external-beam irradiation in the
treatment of patients with clinically localized, low- to high-Gleason
grade prostate carcinoma. Cancer 83:989-1001, 1998.
3. Vicini FA, Kini VR, Edmundson G, et al: A comprehensive review of
prostate cancer brachytherapy: Defining an optimal technique. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44:483-491, 1999.
4. 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.
5. Nag S, Bice WS, DeWyngaert JK, et al: The American Brachytherapy
Society recommendations for permanent prostate brachytherapy
postimplant dosimetric analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
6. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus
Panel: Consensus statement: Guidelines for PSA following radiation
therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:1035-1041, 1997.
7. Kuban DA, el-Mahdi AM, Schellhammer PF: I-125 interstitial
implantation for prostate cancer. What have we learned 10 years
later? Cancer 63:2415-2420, 1989.
8. Deblasio D, Hilaris B, Nori D: Permanent interstitial implantation
of prostatic cancer in the 1980s. Endocurietherapy/Hyperthermia Oncol
9. Herr HW: Interstitial irradiation for localized prostate cancer.
Semin Urol 1:222-228, 1983.
10. Fuks Z, Leibel SA, Wallner KE, et al: The effect of local control
on metastatic dissemination in carcinoma of the prostate: Long-term
results in patients treated with 125I implantation. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 21:537-547, 1991.
11. Morton JD, Peschel RE: Iodine-125 implants vs external-beam
therapy for stages A2, B, and C prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 14:1153-1157, 1988.
12. Shipley WU, Kopelson G, Novack DH, et al: Preoperative
irradiation, lymphadenectomy, and 125iodine implant for patients with
localized prostatic carcinoma: A correlation of implant dosimetry
with clinical results. J Urol 124:639-642, 1980.
13. Nath R, Roberts K, Ng M, et al: Correlation of medical dosimetry
quality indicators to the local tumor control in patients with
prostate cancer treated with iodine-125 interstitial implants. Med
Phys 25:2293-2307, 1998.
14. Zelefsky MJ, Whitmore WFJ: Long-term results of retropubic
permanent 125iodine implantation of the prostate for clinically
localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 158:23-29, 1997.
15. Holm HH, Juul N, Pedersen JF, et al: Transperineal 125iodine seed
implantation in prostatic cancer guided by transrectal
ultrasonography. J Urol 130:283-286, 1983.
16. Blasko J, Ragde H, Grimm PD: Transperineal ultrasound-guided
implantation of the prostate: Morbidity and complications. Scand J
Urol Nephrol 137(suppl):113-118, 1991.
17. Wallner K, Chiu-Tsao ST, Roy J, et al: An improved method for
computerized tomography-planned transperineal 125iodine prostate
implants. J Urol 146:90-95, 1991.
18. Beyer DC, Priestley JBJ: Biochemical disease-free survival
following 125I prostate implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
19. Grado GL, Larson TR, Balch CS, et al: Actuarial disease-free
survival after prostate cancer brachytherapy using interactive
techniques with biplane ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42:289-298, 1998.
20. Dattoli M, Wallner K, Sorace R, et al: 103Pd brachytherapy and
external- beam irradiation for clinically localized, high-risk
prostatic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35:875-879, 1996.
21. Critz FA, Levinson AK, Williams WH, et al: Prostate-specific
antigen nadir: The optimum level after irradiation for prostate
cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:2893-2900, 1996.
22. Potters L, Cha C, Oshinsky G, et al: Risk profiles to predict PSA
relapse-free survival for patients undergoing permanent prostate
brachytherapy. Cancer J Sci Am 5:301-306, 1999.
23. Stock RG, Stone NN, Tabert A, et al: A dose-response study for
I-125 prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:101-108, 1998.
24. Stock RG, Stone NN: The effect of prognostic factors on
therapeutic outcome following transperineal prostate brachytherapy.
Semin Surg Oncol 13:454-460, 1997.
25. Storey MR, Landgren RC, Cottone JL, et al: Transperineal
125iodine implantation for treatment of clinically localized prostate
cancer: 5-Year tumor control and morbidity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 43:565-570, 1999.
26. Zelefsky MJ, Wallner KE, Ling CC, et al: Comparison of the 5-year
outcome and morbidity of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy vs
transperineal permanent iodine-125 implantation for early-stage
prostatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:517-522, 1999.
27. Prestidge BR, Hoak DC, Grimm PD, et al: Posttreatment biopsy
results following interstitial brachytherapy in early-stage prostate
cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:31-39, 1997.
28. Anderson LL: A natural volume-dose histogram for
brachytherapy. Med Phys 13:898-903, 1986.
29. Whitmore WFJ, Batata M, Hilaris B: Prostatic irradiation:
Iodine-125 implantation, in Clinical Conference on Cancer, 23d pp
195-205. Houston, M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, 1978.
30. Yu Y, Waterman FM, Suntharalingam N, et al: Limitations of the
minimum peripheral dose as a parameter for dose specification in
permanent 125I prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
31. Stock RG, Stone NN, Wesson MF, et al: A modified technique
allowing interactive ultrasound-guided three-dimensional
transperineal prostate implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
32. Wallner K , Lee H , Wasserman, S, et al: Low-risk of urinary
incontinence following prostate brachytherapy in patients with a
prior transurethral prostate resection. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
33. Nath R, Anderson LL, Meli JA, et al: Code of practice for
brachytherapy physics: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee
Task Group no. 56: American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Med Phys 24:1557-1598, 1997.
34. Wallace RE: 103Pd brachytherapy dose prescription. Med Phys
35. Ling CC: Permanent implants using Au-198, Pd-103 and I-125:
Radiobiological considerations based on the linear quadratic model.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23:81-87, 1992.
36. Cha CM, Potters L, Ashley R, et al: Isotope selection for
patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 45:391-395, 1999.
37. Potters L, Cha C, Ashley R, et al: The role of external-beam
irradiation in patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy. Urol
Oncol, 2000 (in press).
38. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al: Combination of
prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to
predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A
multi-institutional update. JAMA 277:1445-1451, 1997.
39. Davis BJ, Pisansky TM, Meyers RP, et al: The radial distatnce of
extraprostatic extension of prostate adenocarcimoma: Implications for
prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42:132-132, 1998.
40. Blasko JC, Ragde H, Grimm PD, et al: Prostate brachytherapy:
Importance of technique. J Clin Oncol 14:1965-1967, 1996.
41. Bolla M, Gonzalez D, Warde P, et al: Improved survival in
patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with
radiotherapy and goserelin. N Engl J Med 337:295-300, 1997.
42. DAmico 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, 1998.
43. 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, 2000.
44. Mohan D, Kupelian P, Levin H, et al: Androgen deprivation in
combination with surgery or radiotherapy for localized prostate
cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:315A-315A, 1999.
45. Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, Gaudin PB, et al: Dose escalation with
three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy affects the outcome in
prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:491-500, 1998.
46. Stone NN, Stock RGL: Prostate brachytherapy: Treatment
strategies. J Urol 162:421-426, 1999.
47. Hu K, Wallner K: Clinical course of rectal bleeding following
I-125 prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
48. Wallner K, Roy J, Zelefsky M, et al: Fluoroscopic visualization
of the prostatic urethra to guide transperineal prostate
implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 29:863-867, 1994.
49. SylvesterJ, Blasko JC, Grimm P, et al: Interstitial implantation
techniques in prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol 66:65-75, 1997.
50. Prestidge BR, Bice WS, Kiefer EJ, et al: Timing of computed
tomography-based postimplant assessment following permanent
transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
51. Waterman F M, Yue N, Corn BW, et al: Edema associated with I-125
or Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy and its impact on postimplant
dosimetry: An analysis based on serial CT acquisition. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 41:1069-1077, 1998.
52. Yue N, Chen Z, Peschel R, et al: Optimum timing for image-based
dose evaluation of 125I and 103PD prostate seed implants. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:1063-1072, 1999.
53. Roy JN, Wallner KE, Harrington PJ, et al: A CT-based evaluation
method for permanent implants: Application to prostate. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 26:163-169, 1993.
54. Yamada Y, Potters L, Zelefsky MJ, et al: A prospective evaluation
of intraoperative edema during prostate brachytherapy and its effect
upon the post implant dosimetry of patients planned with preoperative
and intraoperative treatment planning. Clin Invest Med 22(4):S36, 1999.
55. Kleinberg L, Wallner K, Roy J, et al: Treatment-related symptoms
during the first year following transperineal 125I prostate
implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28:985-990, 1994.
56. 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 160:1379-1382, 1998.
57. 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.
58. Wallner K, Roy J, Harrison L: Tumor control and morbidity
following transperineal iodine 125 implantation for stage T1/T2
prostatic carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 14:449-453, 1996.
59. Bice WSJ, Prestidge BR, Grimm PD, et al: Centralized
multiinstitutional postimplant analysis for interstitial prostate
brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:921-927, 1998.
60. Wallner K, Roy J, Zelefsky M, et al: Short-term freedom from
disease progression after I-125 prostate implantation. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 30:405-409, 1994.
61. Arterbery VE , Wallner K, Roy J, et al: Short-term morbidity from
CT-planned transperineal I-125 prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 25:661-667, 1993.
62.Merrick GS, Butler WM, Dorsey AT, et al: Rectal dosimetric
analysis following prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 43:1021-1027, 1999.
63. Gelblum DY, Potters L: Rectal complications associated with
transperineal interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2000 (in press).
64. Stock RG, Stone NN, Iannuzzi C: Sexual potency following
interactive ultrasound-guided brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Int
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35:267-272, 1996.