Definitive treatment for primary urethral cancer: A single institution's experience with organ-preserving brachytherapy.

Brachytherapy Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1016/j.brachy.2024.09.001
R Merten, V Strnad, A Karius, M Lotter, S Kreppner, C Schweizer, R Fietkau, P Schubert
{"title":"Definitive treatment for primary urethral cancer: A single institution's experience with organ-preserving brachytherapy.","authors":"R Merten, V Strnad, A Karius, M Lotter, S Kreppner, C Schweizer, R Fietkau, P Schubert","doi":"10.1016/j.brachy.2024.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radical urethectomy ± cystectomy has long represented the standard of care for rare primary urethral cancer (PUC). With our analysis, we want to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of brachytherapy (BT) of urethra for organ preservation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We analyzed treatment procedures and results of 3 patients with PUC, which have been treated in our department between 2011 and 2020 with brachytherapy. One male patient underwent brachytherapy with chemoradiotherapy after transurethral resection (TUR). Brachytherapy has been performed as high-dose-rate (HDR) boost with a cumulative dose of 8 Gy (9.3 Gy <sub>EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy</sub>). The 2 further female patients have been treated with sole pulsed-dose-rate (PDR) brachytherapy with a total dose of 49.9 Gy (50.3 Gy <sub>EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy</sub>) and 62.2 Gy (64.6 Gy <sub>EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy</sub>).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median follow-up was 103 months (41-153). No local recurrence occurred and all patients are still alive. For the male patient we documented Grade 3 cystitis. As late side effects the pre-existing Grade 2 incontinence worsened to Grade 3. Among female patients one developed Grade 3 vaginal synechiae. There was no Grade ≥4 toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Brachytherapy in PUC is a feasible and promising option with high local control rate and tolerable toxicity. It provides a good alternative to surgery for organ preservation in selected patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":93914,"journal":{"name":"Brachytherapy","volume":" ","pages":"62-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brachytherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2024.09.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Radical urethectomy ± cystectomy has long represented the standard of care for rare primary urethral cancer (PUC). With our analysis, we want to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of brachytherapy (BT) of urethra for organ preservation.

Materials and methods: We analyzed treatment procedures and results of 3 patients with PUC, which have been treated in our department between 2011 and 2020 with brachytherapy. One male patient underwent brachytherapy with chemoradiotherapy after transurethral resection (TUR). Brachytherapy has been performed as high-dose-rate (HDR) boost with a cumulative dose of 8 Gy (9.3 Gy EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy). The 2 further female patients have been treated with sole pulsed-dose-rate (PDR) brachytherapy with a total dose of 49.9 Gy (50.3 Gy EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy) and 62.2 Gy (64.6 Gy EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy).

Results: Median follow-up was 103 months (41-153). No local recurrence occurred and all patients are still alive. For the male patient we documented Grade 3 cystitis. As late side effects the pre-existing Grade 2 incontinence worsened to Grade 3. Among female patients one developed Grade 3 vaginal synechiae. There was no Grade ≥4 toxicity.

Conclusion: Brachytherapy in PUC is a feasible and promising option with high local control rate and tolerable toxicity. It provides a good alternative to surgery for organ preservation in selected patients.

原发性尿道癌的确定性治疗:一家医疗机构使用保留器官近距离放射治疗的经验。
背景:长期以来,根治性尿道切除术和膀胱切除术一直是罕见原发性尿道癌(PUC)的标准治疗方法。通过分析,我们希望证明尿道近距离放射治疗(BT)在保留器官方面的有效性和安全性:我们分析了 2011 年至 2020 年期间在我科接受近距离放射治疗的 3 例 PUC 患者的治疗过程和结果。其中一名男性患者在经尿道切除术(TUR)后接受了近距离放射治疗和化疗。近距离放射治疗采用高剂量率(HDR)增强疗法,累积剂量为 8 Gy(9.3 Gy EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy)。另外两名女性患者接受了单脉冲剂量率(PDR)近距离放射治疗,总剂量分别为49.9 Gy(50.3 Gy EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy)和62.2 Gy(64.6 Gy EQD2-α/β = 10 Gy):中位随访时间为 103 个月(41-153 个月)。没有发生局部复发,所有患者均健在。男性患者的膀胱炎达到了 3 级。作为晚期副作用,原有的 2 级尿失禁恶化为 3 级。女性患者中有一人出现了 3 级阴道挛缩。没有≥4级的毒性反应:结论:近距离放射治疗 PUC 是一种可行且前景广阔的选择,具有较高的局部控制率和可耐受的毒性。结论:近距离放射治疗 PUC 是一种可行且有前途的选择,局部控制率高,毒性可耐受,是经选择的患者保留器官手术的良好替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信