IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01618005.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Toxicité et qualité de vie comparées après curiethérapie par iode 125 et radiothérapie stéréotaxique des cancers prostatiques [Toxicity and quality of life comparison of iodine 125 brachytherapy and stereotactic radiotherapy for prostate cancers]

Author

Listed:
  • K. Gnep

    (Service de radiothérapie - CRLCC - CRLCC Eugène Marquis - UNICANCER)

  • T. Lizée

    (CRLCC - CRLCC Eugène Marquis - UNICANCER)

  • B. Campillo-Gimenez

    (CRLCC - CRLCC Eugène Marquis - UNICANCER, LTSI - Laboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l'Image - UR - Université de Rennes - INSERM - Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale)

  • G. Delpon

    (UNICANCER/ICO - Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest [Angers/Nantes] - UNICANCER)

  • S. Droupy

    (CHU Nîmes - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes)

  • Lionel Perrier

    (Centre Léon Bérard [Lyon], GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • R. De Crevoisier

    (LTSI - Laboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l'Image - UR - Université de Rennes - INSERM - Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Service de radiothérapie - CRLCC - CRLCC Eugène Marquis - UNICANCER)

Abstract

Quality of life is a major issue for good prognostic prostate cancer, for which brachytherapy is one of the reference treatments. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) is a recent alternative however not yet validated as a standard treatment. This review of the literature reports and compares the toxicities and the quality of life, either after exclusive brachytherapy with iodine 125 or after SBRT. The comparison is made with the limitations of the absence of randomized trial comparing the two treatment techniques. Acute toxicity appears to be lower after SBRT compared to brachytherapy (from 10 to 40 % versus 30 to 40 %, respectively). Conversely, acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity (from 0 to 21 % and from 0 to 10 % of grade 2, respectively) appears more frequent with SBRT. Late urinary toxicity seems identical between both techniques (from 20 to 30 % of grade 2), with a possible urinary flare syndrome. Both treatments have an impact on erectile dysfunction, although it is not possible to conclude that a technique is superior because of the limited data on SBRT. SBRT has better bowel and urinary (irritation or obstruction) quality of life scores than brachytherapy; while sexual and urinary incontinence remain the same. The absence of randomized trial comparing SBRT with brachytherapy for prostate cancers does not allow to conclude on the superiority of one technique over another, thus justifying a phase III medicoeconomic evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • K. Gnep & T. Lizée & B. Campillo-Gimenez & G. Delpon & S. Droupy & Lionel Perrier & R. De Crevoisier, 2017. "Toxicité et qualité de vie comparées après curiethérapie par iode 125 et radiothérapie stéréotaxique des cancers prostatiques [Toxicity and quality of life comparison of iodine 125 brachytherapy and s," Post-Print hal-01618005, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01618005
    DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2017.07.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01618005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.