Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Technology Insight: combined external-beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy in the management of prostate cancer

Nature Clinical Practice Oncology volume 5, pages 668–676 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

External-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with brachytherapy is an attractive treatment option for selected patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. This therapeutic strategy offers dosimetric coverage if local-regional microscopic disease is present and provides a highly conformal boost of radiation to the prostate and immediate surrounding tissues. Either low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent brachytherapy or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary brachytherapy can be combined with EBRT; such combined-modality therapy (CMT) is typically used to treat patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk, clinically localized disease. Controversy persists with regard to indications for CMT, choice of LDR or HDR boost, isotope selection for LDR, and integration of EBRT and brachytherapy. Initial findings from prospective, multicenter trials of CMT support the feasibility of this strategy. Updated results from these trials as well as those of ongoing and new phase III trials should help to define the role of CMT in the management of prostate cancer. In the meantime, long-term expectations for outcomes of CMT are based largely on the experience of single institutions, which demonstrate that CMT with EBRT and either LDR or HDR brachytherapy can provide freedom from disease recurrence with acceptable toxicity.

Key Points

  • Combined-modality therapy (CMT) offers patients with adverse-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer the advantages of both broad regional coverage derived from external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and a highly conformal boost with brachytherapy

  • Controversies remain in relation to the use of CMT: appropriate patient selection, choice of low-dose-rate (LDR) versus high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost, and how best to integrate EBRT and brachytherapy

  • A growing number of retrospective series indicate that both LDR and HDR boost offer clinical outcomes and toxicity profiles that compare well with other treatment approaches for similar patient populations

  • Phase II and III studies, although generally of shorter median follow-up than retrospective series, support the notion that CMT is feasible

  • Extended follow-up and completion of additional prospective studies are needed in order to define the role of CMT in treatment of prostate cancer

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Imaging and treatment planning for prostate brachytherapy.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barringer B (1917) Radium in the treatment of carcinoma of the bladder and prostate. JAMA 68: 1227–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Whitmore W et al. (1972) Retropubic implantation of iodine 125 in the treatment of prostate cancer. J Urol 108: 918–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zelefsky M and Whitmore W (1997) Long-term results of retropubic permanent 125iodine implantation of the prostate for clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 158: 23–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Torp-Pedersen S et al. (1987) Transperineal I-125 seed implantation in prostate cancer guided by transrectal ultrasound. Prog Clin Biol Res 237: 143–152

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blasko JC et al. (1991) Transperineal ultrasound-guided implantation of the prostate: morbidity and complications. Scand J Urol Nephrol 137 (Suppl): 113–118

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Scardino P (2005) Update: NCCN prostate cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 3 (Suppl 1): S29–S33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frank SJ et al. (2007) Interstitial implant alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a survey of practice patterns in the United States. Brachytherapy 6: 2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brenner D and Hall E (1999) Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 43: 1095–1101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Guerrero M and Li XA (2006) Halftime for repair of sublethal damage in normal bladder and rectum: an analysis of clinical data from cervix brachytherapy. Phys Med Biol 51: 4063–4071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nag S et al. (1999) American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommendations for transperineal permanent brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44: 789–799

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Beyer D et al. (2000) American brachytherapy society recommendations for clinical implementation of NIST-1999 standards for (103)palladium brachytherapy. The clinical research committee of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47: 273–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rivard MJ et al. (2007) American Brachytherapy Society recommends no change for prostate permanent implant dose prescriptions using iodine-125 or palladium-103. Brachytherapy 6: 34–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ling C (1992) 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Potters L et al. (2003) The effect of isotope selection on the prostate-specific antigen response in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2: 26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Peschel R et al. (2004) Iodine 125 versus palladium 103 implants for prostate cancer: clinical outcomes and complications. Cancer J 10: 170–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wallner K et al. (2003) 125I versus 103Pd for low-risk prostate cancer: preliminary PSA outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57: 1297–1303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Herstein A et al. (2005) I-125 versus Pd-103 for low-risk prostate cancer: long-term morbidity outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial. Cancer J 11: 385–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Critz F et al. (2000) Simultaneous irradiation for prostate cancer: intermediate results with modern techniques. J Urol 164: 738–741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee W et al. (2006) A Phase II study of external beam radiotherapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate-risk, clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: preliminary results of RTOG P-0019. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64: 804–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee W et al. (2007) Late toxicity and biochemical recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy combined with permanent-source prostate brachytherapy. Cancer 109: 1506–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hurwitz et al. (2008) Combination external beam radiation and brachytherapy boost with androgen suppression for treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer: an initial report of CALGB 99809. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys [10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.01.010]

  22. Sylvester J et al. (2007) 15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical stage T1–T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67: 57–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dattoli M et al. (2007) Long-term outcomes after treatment with brachytherapy and supplemental conformal radiation for prostate cancer patients having intermediate and high-risk features. Cancer 110: 551–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Merrick G et al. (2005) Impact of supplemental external beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61: 32–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh A et al. (2004) Combined external beam radiotherapy and Pd-103 brachytherapy boost improves biochemical failure free survival in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: results of a matched pair analysis. Prostate 62: 54–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stock R et al. (2004) Combined modality treatment in the management of high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59: 1352–1359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hoskin PJ et al. (2007) High dose rate brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy in the radical treatment of prostate cancer: initial results of a randomised phase three trial. Radiother Oncol 84: 114–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vargas C et al. (2006) High-dose irradiation for prostate cancer via a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost: results of a phase I to II study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66: 416–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Demanes D et al. (2005) High-dose-rate intensity-modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: California endocurietherapy's 10-year results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61: 1306–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Galalae R et al. (2004) Long-term outcome by risk factors using conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost with or without neoadjuvant androgen suppression for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58: 1048–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Deger S et al. (2005) High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy with conformal radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 47: 441–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Phan TP et al. (2007) High dose rate brachytherapy as a boost for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 177: 123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Astrom et al. (2005) Long-term outcome of high dose rate brachytherapy in radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 74: 157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hsu IC et al. (2005) Combined modality treatment with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for locally advanced prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 4: 202–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yamada Y et al. (2006) Favorable clinical outcomes of three-dimensional computer-optimized high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy in the mangement of localized prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 5: 157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Izard MA et al. (2006) Six year experience of external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy boost with a 1 Ci 192Ir source, and neoadjuvant hormonal manipulation for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66: 38–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nag S et al. (2002) American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for reporting morbidity after prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54: 462–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ghaly M et al. (2003) 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Albert M et al. (2003) Late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity after magnetic resonance image-guided prostate brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 98: 949–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kang SK et al. (2002) Gastrointestinal toxicity of transperineal interstitial prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53: 99–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sarosdy MF et al. (2004) Urinary and rectal complications of contemporary permanent transperineal brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma with or without external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 101: 754–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moreira SG et al. (2004) Devastating complications after brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma. BJU Int 93: 31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tran A et al. (2005) Rectal fistulas after prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63: 150–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pinkawa M et al. (2006) Health related quality of life after permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer: correlation with postimplant CT scan parameters. Strahlenther Onkol 182: 660–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kelly K et al. (2006) Prediction of urinary symptoms after 125iodine prostate brachytherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 18: 326–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Shah JN and Ennis RD (2006) Rectal toxicity profile after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy: use of a comprehensive toxicity scoring system and identification of rectal dosimetric toxicity predictors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64: 817–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Taussky D et al. (2004) Factors predicting an increased dose to the penile bulb in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 3: 125–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zaider M et al. (2005) Methodology for biologically-based treatment planning for combined low-dose-rate (permanent implant) and high-dose-rate (fractionated) treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61: 702–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Soumarova R et al. (2006) Acute toxicity of conformal high dose interstitial brachytherapy boost in prostate cancer. Neoplasia 53: 410–417

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Duchesne GM et al. (2007) Patterns of toxicity following high-dose rate brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer: mature prospective phase I/II study results. Radiother Oncol 84: 128–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pinkawa M et al. (2006) Dose-volume impact in high-dose-rate iridium-192 brachytherapy as a boost to external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer—a phase II study. Radiother Oncol 78: 41–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wahlgren T et al. (2007) Promising long-term health-related quality of life after high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69: 662–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Vordermark D et al. (2006) 3-D conformal treatment of prostate cancer to 74 Gy vs. high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost: a cross-sectional quality-of-life survey. Acta Oncol 45: 708–716

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Jo Y et al. (2005) Radical prostatectomy versus high-dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: effects on health-related quality of life. BJU Int 96: 43–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, ASB1 L2, Boston, MA 02115, USA mhurwitz@lroc.harvard.edu

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MD Hurwitz is Director of Regional Program Development in the Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA.,

    Mark D Hurwitz

Authors
  1. Mark D Hurwitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hurwitz, M. Technology Insight: combined external-beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy in the management of prostate cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 5, 668–676 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1224

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1224

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing