Prostatic Neoplasms: Kuettel M

Mohler J, Babaian RJ, Bahnson RR, Boston B, D'Amico A, Eastham JA, Hauke RJ, Huben RP, Kantoff P, Kawachi M, Kuettel M, Lange PH, Logothetis C, MacVicar G, Pollack A, Pow-Sang JM, Roach M, Sandler H, Shrieve D, Srinivas S, Twardowski P, Urban DA, Walsh PC, Anonymous00332. · No affiliation provided · J Natl Compr Canc Netw. · Pubmed #17692170 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Bahnson RR, Hanks GE, Huben RP, Kantoff P, Kozlowski JM, Kuettel M, Lange PH, Logothetis C, Pow-Sang JM, Roach M, Sandler H, Scardino PT, Taylor RJ, Urban DA, Walsh PC, Wilson TG, Anonymous00207. · James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. · Oncology (Williston Park). · Pubmed #11195405 No free full text.

Abstract: Systemic therapies for prostate cancer are likely to improve, and as they do, they will have enormous impact on the treatment of high-risk and locally advanced cancers. Further technical improvements in radiotherapy and alternative local modalities, such as cryoablation, are also likely, and will bring even more options for local control. It is certain these guidelines will continue to evolve.

Lee WR, Bae K, Lawton C, Gillin M, Morton G, Firat S, Baikadi M, Kuettel M, Greven K, Sandler H. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA. · Cancer. · Pubmed #17340591 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The combination of external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy is used commonly to treat men with prostate cancer. In this analysis, the authors examined the rate of biochemical recurrence (BR) and late grade > or =3 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity after treatment with external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy in a multiinstitutional, cooperative group setting. METHODS: All eligible patients received external-beam radiotherapy (45 Gray [Gy] in 25 fractions) followed 2 to 6 weeks later by an interstitial implant using iodine-125 to deliver an additional 108 Gy. BR was defined in 2 ways: according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) Consensus Definition (ACD) and according to the Phoenix definition (PD) (prostate-specific antigen nadir +2 ng/mL). The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group(RTOG)/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late radiation morbidity scoring system was used to grade all toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were enrolled, and 130 were eligible for the current analysis. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 49 months (range, 20-60 months). The 48-month estimate of late grade > or =3 GU/GI toxicity was 15% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 8-21%), and the 48-month estimate of BR was 19% (95% CI, 12-26%) and 14% (95% CI, 8-20%) according to the ACD and PD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity observed in this multiinstitutional, cooperative group study was slightly higher than that reported in recent RTOG studies using brachytherapy alone or high-dose external-beam radiotherapy. The BR rate observed in this report was similar to that observed with high-dose external-beam radiotherapy alone in similar patients.

Lee WR, DeSilvio M, Lawton C, Gillin M, Morton G, Firat S, Baikadi M, Kuettel M, Greven K, Sandler H. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1030, USA. · Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. · Pubmed #16289906 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To estimate the rate of acute and late Grade 3-5 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity after treatment with external beam radiotherapy and permanent source brachytherapy in a multi-institutional, cooperative group setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients were treated with external beam radiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions), followed 2-6 weeks later by an interstitial implant using 125I to deliver an additional 108 Gy. Late genitourinary toxicity was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria Version 2.0, and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late radiation morbidity scoring system was used for all other toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients from 28 institutions were entered on this study. Acute toxicity information was available in 131 patients, and 127 patients were analyzable for late toxicity. Acute Grade 3 toxicity was documented in 10 of 131 patients (7.6%). No Grade 4 or 5 acute toxicity has been observed. The 18-month month estimate of late Grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was 3.3% (95% confidence interval, 0.1-6.5). No late Grade 4 or 5 toxicity has been observed. CONCLUSIONS: The acute and late morbidity observed in this multi-institutional, cooperative group study is consistent with previous reports from single institutions with significant prostate brachytherapy experience.

Lee WR, Bae K, Lawton CA, Gillin MT, Morton G, Firat S, Baikadi M, Kuettel M, Greven K, Sandler H. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. · Brachytherapy. · Pubmed #17118317 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: To date, there are few descriptive analyses of postimplant dosimetry from multi-institutional clinical trials. The purpose of this report is to describe the postimplant dosimetry achieved in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0019. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were treated with external beam radiation therapy (45 Gy/25 fractions) followed by a prostate implant (I-125, prescription dose 108 Gy). Postimplant dosimetric assessment was accomplished by obtaining a CT scan of the prostate 1 month after the date of the implant procedure. Prostate volume was outlined by the first author. Dose-volume histograms were calculated by the Radiologic Physics Center. Four dosimetric quantifiers (DQs) were examined: D90 is the dose (reported as percentage of the prescription dose) received by 90% of the prostate; V100, V150, V200 is the percentage of the prostate volume receiving 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescription dose, respectively. For the purposes of analysis, institutions were divided into three groups according to accrual (<5, 6-9, 10-12). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients from 27 institutions were registered in the study. Nineteen patients were excluded from this analysis; 14 who had no data and 5 who were ineligible, leaving 119 for analysis. The mean, median, and range of the four DQs are as follows: D90 105.6%, 106.0%, 57.6-174.8%; V100 89.8%, 92.6%, 11.2-100%; V150 58.4%, 59.6%, 0.9-93.7%; and V200 27.9%, 25.1%, 0.3-85.2%. Statistically significant differences according to institutional accrual were observed for D90 (p = 0.0283) and V200 (p = 0.0075), but not for V100 (p = 0.1534) and V150 (p = 0.0509). CONCLUSIONS: The DQ observed in this multi-institutional prospective study are roughly comparable to series from single institutions with considerable brachytherapy experience. Differences in DQs were observed according to institutional accrual. These data could be used to determine a community standard with respect to postimplant dosimetry.