Table 2.
Primary disease and treatment characteristics for brachytherapy studies.
| First author (country) | Year | Salvage BT type | Design | Pts (n) | PSA (ng/mL)(range) | ISUP | GS | % GS (≤7) | % GS (≥8) | T stage | % T stage (≤T2a) | % T stage (≥T2b) | Risk Class | Primary treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B Lee (USA) | 2007 | HDR | R | 21 | NR | 1 | 6 | 100 | 0 | T2c | 48 | 52 | NR | EBRT, BT, protonTx |
| Lyczek (Poland) | 2009 | HDR | R | 115 | 13 (2.34-64.5) | NR | NR | NR | NR | T2 | 58 | 42 | NR | RP+EBRT, EBRT, BT, EBRT+BT |
| Chen (USA) | 2013 | HDR | R | 52 | 9.3 (1.2-58) | 1 | 6 | 87 | 13 | T2 | NR | NR | NR | EBRT, BT, EBRT+BT, PBT |
| Kukielka (Poland) | 2014 | HDR | R | 25 | 16.3 (6.37-64) | 1 | <6 | 88 | 4 | T2c | 48 | 52 | Intermediate | EBRT |
| *Yamada (USA) | 2014 | HDR | P | 42 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | EBRT |
| Jiang (Germany) | 2016 | HDR | R | 29 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | High | EBRT, EBRT+BT |
| Lacy (USA) | 2016 | HDR | R | 21 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | Low | BT, EBRT+BT |
| Wojcieszek (Poland) | 2016 | HDR | R | 83 | 13.7 | 1 | 6 | 80 | 4 | T2 | NR | NR | Intermediate | EBRT, EBRT+BT |
| Lopez (Spain) | 2019 | HDR | R | 75 | 8.9 (3.5-42.1) | 1 | 6 | 75 | 20 | NR | NR | NR | Intermediate | EBRT, BT |
| 2019 | LDR | R | 44 | 14.2 (3.2-167) | 1 | 6 | 87 | 11 | NR | NR | NR | Intermediate | EBRT | |
| Chitmanee (UK) | 2020 | HDR | P | 50 | <10 (46%) | 2/3 | 7 | 90 | 10 | T2 | 72 | 28 | Intermediate | EBRT, BT |
| Slevin (UK) | 2020 | HDR | R | 43 | 10.5 (3.4-178) | 1 | 6 | 90 | 10 | T2 | 73% | 27% | Intermediate | EBRT, BT |
| van Son (Netherlands) | 2020 | HDR | P | 50 | 13 (2.1-140) | 1 | 6 | 82 | 12 | T2a | 72 | 28 | NR | EBRT, BT |
| Kollmeier (USA) | 2017 | HDR/LDR | R | 98 | ≤10 (74%) | 2 | 7 | 92 | 8 | T2b | 68 | 32 | NR | EBRT, BT, EBRT+BT |
| Baumann (USA) | 2017 | HDR/LDR | R | 33 | 8.4 (3.8-68.7) | NR | 7 | 79 | 21 | T2 | 55 | 45 | High | EBRT |
| Henriquez (Spain) | 2014 | HDR/LDR | R | 56 | 10.7 (4-121) | 1 | 6 | 95 | 5 | T2 | 87 | 13 | Intermediate | EBRT, BT |
| Grado (USA) | 1999 | LDR | R | 49 | 26.4 (2.3-95.8) | NR | 7 to 10 | NR | NR | T2b | NR | NR | NR | EBRT, BT, RP |
| Koutrouvelis (USA) | 2003 | LDR | R | 31 | <10 (32%) | NR | 6 | 77 | 23 | T2b/T3a | 32% | 68% | NR | BT |
| Nguyen (USA) | 2007 | LDR | P | 25 | 7.4 (4.2-18.4) | 1 | 6 | 100 | 0 | T1c | NR | NR | NR | EBRT, EBRT+BT |
| HK Lee (USA) | 2008 | LDR | R | 21 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | EBRT |
| Aaronson (USA) | 2009 | LDR | R | 24 | 9.9 (3.2-69) | 3 | 7 | 71 | 12 | T1c | NR | NR | NR | EBRT |
| Burri (USA) | 2010 | LDR | R | 37 | 10.9 (4.4-81) | NR | 6 | 73 | 11 | NR | 19 | 16 | Intermediate | EBRT, BT |
| Moman (Netherlands) | 2010 | LDR | R | 31 | 24.3 | NR | 7 | 84 | 6.5 | T2 | NR | NR | NR | EBRT, BT |
| Peters (Netherlands) | 2014 | LDR | R | 20 | 12.9 (5.4-51) | 1 | 6 | 90 | 10 | T3 | NR | NR | High | EBRT, BT |
| Vargas (USA) | 2014 | LDR | R | 69 | <10 (62%) | 1 | 6 | 80.3 | 19.7 | T2 | NR | NR | NR | EBRT |
| Peters (Netherlands) | 2016 | LDR | R | 62 | 16.6 (2.6-66.9) | 2/3 | 7 | 95 | 5 | T2 | 66 | 34 | NR | EBRT, BT |
| Crook (Canada) | 2019 | LDR | P | 92 | NR | NR | 7 | 100 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | low/intermediate | EBRT |
| Smith (USA) | 2020 | LDR | P | 108 | 9.15 (1.7-116) | 1 | 6 | 54 | 10 | T2 | 67 | 5 | Intermediate | EBRT |
| Schonle (Germany) | 2020 | PDR | R | 82 | 9 (0.9-170) | 2/3 | 7 | 74 | 11 | NR | NR | NR | Intermediate | EBRT, BT, RP |
BT, brachytherapy; HDR, high dose rate; LDR, low dose rate; R, retrospective; P, prospective; Pts, patients, n, nnumber; PSA, prostate specific antigen; NR, not recorded; GS, Gleason score; EBRT, external beam radiotherapy; PBT, proton beam treatment; RP, radical prostatectomy.
For PSA, ISUP and GS, the median scores are presented.
*Yamada (USA) study cohort included in further publication Kollmeier (USA) however specific treatment characteristics and toxicity were not covered in later paper.