Little if any mention here about what patients are NOT good candidates for Brachytherapy...such as enlarged prostate, BPH, etc ....too much data and not enough practical information
Seems pretty logical that if toxicities are minimized, the wider margins available make Brachy (as a 'boost or as monotherapy) a better tool (v surgery) for intermediate and high risk.
You know, you can put all this DATA out there, but all that really matters to the patients is what happens to THEM. Your remark up front that all treatments are toxic is really the bottom line. I do agree that brachytherapy is the way to go if focal therapy is not an option.
Little if any mention here about what patients are NOT good candidates for Brachytherapy...such as enlarged prostate, BPH, etc ....too much data and not enough practical information
Seems pretty logical that if toxicities are minimized, the wider margins available make Brachy (as a 'boost or as monotherapy) a better tool (v surgery) for intermediate and high risk.
Just wondering if the seed implants were permanent or temporary, and the risks associated with both.
You know, you can put all this DATA out there, but all that really matters to the patients is what happens to THEM. Your remark up front that all treatments are toxic is really the bottom line. I do agree that brachytherapy is the way to go if focal therapy is not an option.