Biochemical control and toxicity for favorable- and intermediate-risk patients using real-time intraoperative inverse optimization prostate seed implant: Less is more!

Published:February 07, 2017DOI:



      To report the biochemical control rate and clinical outcomes with real-time inverse planning (inverse optimization prostate seed implant [IO-PSI]) for favorable-risk (FR) and intermediate-risk (IR) prostate adenocarcinoma in a community practice setting. This analysis is an extended followup of our initial report, with favorable early biochemical control rate (biochemical nonevidence of disease) of 97% at 4 years.

      Methods and Materials

      Three hundred fifty-seven evaluable patients with FR and IR prostate cancer underwent real-time IO-PSI (iodine-125/145 Gy or palladium-103/120 Gy) between 2001 and 2013.


      With a median followup of 54 months (range, 24–110 months), the absolute biochemical failure free survival of disease was 96%. The 8-year actuarial probability of prostate-specific antigen failure-free survival for FR and IR cohorts was 92.4% and 87%, respectively. Late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity remained low. Late Grade 2 and Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was 19% and 1%, respectively. Late Grade 2 and 3 rectal bleeding rates were 1% and 0%, respectively. No difference in biochemical control was observed with preimplant short course androgen deprivation or between Gleason score 3 + 4 vs. 4 + 3 patients. No dosimetric parameter was predictive of biochemical failure. Patients with FR had a significantly decreased risk of failure (hazard ratio = 0.26; 95% confidence interval = 0.09–0.78; p = 0.02) compared with those with IR. Patients with a prostate-specific antigen nadir >0.4 ng/mL had an increased risk of failure (hazard ratio = 1.37; 95% confidence interval = 1.27–1.47; p < 0.0001).


      Our initial biochemical and clinical outcomes using real-time IO-PSI persisted with extended followup and support our original hypothesis for use of a reduced number of sources, needles, and total activity, suggesting that with IO, less is more.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Brachytherapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Sylvester J.E.
        • Grimm P.D.
        • Wong J.
        • et al.
        Fifteen-year biochemical relapse-free survival, cause-specific survival, and overall survival following I125 prostate brachytherapy in clinically localized prostate cancer: Seattle experience.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81: 376-381
        • Durkee B.Y.
        • Buyyounouski M.K.
        The case for prostate brachytherapy in the Affordable Care Act era.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 91: 465-467
        • Stock R.G.
        • Cesaretti J.A.
        • Stone N.N.
        Disease-specific survival following the brachytherapy management of prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64: 810-816
        • Zelefsky M.J.
        • Yamada Y.
        • Pei X.
        • et al.
        Comparison of tumor control and toxicity outcomes of high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy and brachytherapy for patients with favorable risk prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2011; 77: 986-993
        • Crook J.
        • Borg J.
        • Evans A.
        • et al.
        10-year experience with I-125 prostate brachytherapy at the Princess Margaret Hospital: Results for 1,100 patients.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 80: 1323-1329
        • Vargas C.
        • Swartz D.
        • Vashi A.
        • et al.
        Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors in patients treated with intraoperatively planned prostate brachytherapy.
        Brachytherapy. 2013; 12: 120-125
        • Raben A.
        • Sammons S.
        • Sim S.
        • et al.
        Initial comparison of inverse optimization, modified peripheral technique, and geometric optimization as real-time intraoperative computer planning options for permanent seed implantation of the prostate.
        Brachytherapy. 2007; 6: 238-245
        • Raben A.
        • Rusthoven K.E.
        • Sarkar A.
        • et al.
        Favorable toxicity and biochemical control using real-time inverse optimization technique for prostate brachytherapy.
        Brachytherapy. 2009; 8: 297-303
        • Zelefsky M.J.
        • Levin E.J.
        • Hunt M.
        • et al.
        Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 70: 1124-1129
        • Kuo H.C.
        • Bodner W.
        • Yaparpalvi R.
        • et al.
        Progressive transition from pre-planned to intraoperative optimizing seed implant: Post implementation analysis.
        J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2012; 4: 45-51
        • Stock R.G.
        • Stone N.N.
        • Tabert A.
        • et al.
        A dose-response study for I-125 prostate implants.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 41: 101-108
        • Sylvester J.
        • Grimm P.
        • Naidoo D.
        • et al.
        First report on the use of a thinner 125I radioactive seed within 20-gauge needles for permanent radioactive seed prostate brachytherapy: Evaluation of postimplant dosimetry and acute toxicity.
        Brachytherapy. 2013; 12: 375-381
        • Pugh T.J.
        • Frank S.J.
        • Achim M.
        • et al.
        Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for predicting pathologic T3 disease in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: Implications for prostate brachytherapy.
        Brachytherapy. 2013; 12: 204-209
        • Genebes C.
        • Filleron T.
        • Graff P.
        • et al.
        Conventional versus automated implantation of loose seeds in prostate brachytherapy: Analysis of dosimetric and clinical results.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 87: 651-658
        • Moerland M.A.
        • van Deursen M.J.
        • Elias S.G.
        • et al.
        Decline of dose coverage between intraoperative planning and post implant dosimetry for I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy: Comparison between loose and stranded seed implants.
        Radiother Oncol. 2009; 91: 202-206
        • Podder T.K.
        • Beaulieu L.
        • Caldwell B.
        • et al.
        AAPM and GEC-ESTRO guidelines for image-guided robotic brachytherapy: Report of Task Group 192.
        Med Phys. 2014; 41: 101501
        • Saibishkumar E.P.
        • Borg J.
        • Yeung I.
        • et al.
        Loose seeds vs. stranded seeds: A comparison of critical organ dosimetry and acute toxicity in (125)I permanent implant for low-risk prostate cancer.
        Brachytherapy. 2008; 7: 200-205
        • Sarkar A.
        • Donavanik V.
        • Zhang I.
        • et al.
        Prostate implant dosimetric outcomes and migration patterns between bio-absorbable coated and uncoated brachytherapy seeds.
        Brachytherapy. 2013; 12: 356-361
        • Prestidge B.R.
        • Winter K.
        • Sanda M.G.
        • et al.
        Initial report of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0232: A phase 3 study comparing combined external beam radiation and transperineal interstitial permanent brachytherapy with brachytherapy alone for selected patients with intermediate-risk prostatic carcinoma.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 96: S4
        • Taira A.V.
        • Merrick G.S.
        • Butler W.M.
        • et al.
        Time to failure after definitive therapy for prostate cancer: Implications for importance of aggressive local treatment.
        J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2013; 5: 215-221