Does brachytherapy have a role in the treatment of prostate cancer?

The goal of radiation therapy is to deliver a high dose to the tumor while preserving normal surrounding tissue. For early-stage prostate cancer, the ultimate conformal irradiation is to place radioactive sources directly into the gland either as permanent or temporary seeds. Permanent seed implantation is capable of delivering two times the radiobiologically equivalent dose of external beam irradiation to the prostate and tumor. In the past, the results of prostate brachytherapy were likely poor owing to the technical difficulty in accurately placing the radioactive seeds uniformly throughout the prostate. The use of low-dose-rate I-125 to treat high-grade cancers probably also contributed to the poorer results as compared with external beam irradiation. Over the last 10 years, however, technologic advances in transrectal ultrasonography, computer dosimetry, and template-based transperineal techniques have dramatically improved the accuracy and consistency of the brachytherapist to place radioactive sources directly into the prostate gland. Transperineal ultrasound or CT directed seed implantation has replaced the older retropubic method. Brachytherapists are now able to accurately map out the gland prior to the implant and carefully evaluate preoperatively seed placement. The availability of such radioactive sources as iodine-125, palladium-103, and iridium-192 has also given the brachytherapist isotopes that can be more carefully matched to the biology and stage of the tumor. More sensitive definitions of failure have prompted radiation oncologists and urologists to carefully evaluate the efficacy of external beam irradiation and surgery. Accurate comparison of the efficacy of brachytherapy to surgery and to external beam radiation requires a randomized study. Comparisons of retrospective studies are fraught with the problems of the heterogeneous nature of early-stage prostate cancer. Imbalances in stage, grade, initial PSA extraprostatic disease, and nodal status of patient groups make comparisons difficult. Most of the long-term data for permanent seed implantation are the result of work at a single institution. These results will need to be repeated at other institutions treating patients in a similar manner. Because techniques vary from institution to institution, permanent implant results will need to be carefully evaluated for technique as well as stratified for pretreatment variables. Pretreatment PSA and grade appear to be more sensitive variables than stage in predicting failure after radiation. As more patients are diagnosed with very early and nonpalpable disease, future studies will need to stratify patients based on these pretreatment factors. Patients with early-stage disease but identified as high risk for extraprostatic disease will require more intensive regimens. The treatment outcomes based on biopsy results are inconclusive. A lack of consensus on the definition of a truly positive biopsy remains forthcoming. The value of a positive prostate biopsy as an outcome predictor for clinical failure is still unclear. The use of prostate nuclear cell antigen staining may help clarify the issue. Comparison of treatment outcome based on absolute PSA is also difficult. The Seattle series suggest that brachytherapy by permanent seed implantation is as efficacious as external beam irradiation for early-stage disease in patients with a low PSA (< 10 ng/mL). As the PSA value rises above 10 ng/mL, the probability of failure after external beam rises substantially. Results from the Seattle series suggest an advantage to seed implant alone or the judicious application of seed implant boost to external beam radiation for these patients with more advanced cancer. The most sensitive measurement of therapeutic outcome is progression-free survival. Few studies to date have evaluated progression-free survival.