ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2026
Permanent seed brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Monotherapy, combined, and salvage approaches remain effective and well-tolerated options.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Temporary prostate brachytherapy alone or as boost: Single-institution experience on dose-response assessment focusing on sphincter-related urinary toxicity.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate oncologic outcomes and treatment-related toxicity in patients with prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implant brachytherapy, either as monotherapy or combined with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Material and methods: Between 2008 and 2023, a retrospective cohort of 805 patients with prostate cancer underwent permanent iodine-125 seed implant brachytherapy. Of these, 394 (48.9%) were classified as low risk, 303 (37.6%) as intermediate risk, and 108 (13.4%) as high risk, according to the D'Amico classification. Low-risk patients were treated with brachytherapy alone, whereas intermediate- and high-risk patients received combined brachytherapy with EBRT (50 Gy). ADT was administered for 6 months in intermediate-risk patients and for 18-36 months in high-risk patients, according to institutional practice. The prescribed brachytherapy dose was 145 Gy for monotherapy and 110 Gy for brachytherapy combined with EBRT. Biochemical recurrence was defined according to the Phoenix criteria. Results: Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) remained high across risk groups, with disease control rates of 95.3% in low-risk, 96.0% in intermediate-risk, and 94.3% in high-risk patients. Eight patients with local recurrence after prior radiotherapy underwent salvage brachytherapy; seven remained disease-free at last follow-up. Late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 0.9% of patients treated with brachytherapy alone and in 4.0% of those receiving combined therapy. No grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. Conclusions: Permanent seed brachytherapy provides durable oncologic control with a low incidence of clinically significant toxicity across different risk groups. In the salvage setting, outcomes should be interpreted cautiously due to small number of patients. These findings support the role of permanent seed brachytherapy as an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for appropriately selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.