Downloads: 521

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
58_185.pdf1.65 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: 前立腺癌に対する小線源治療後の下部尿路症状の解析
Other Titles: Clinical Evaluation of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Following Seed Implant for Prostate Cancer
Authors: 岡根谷, 利一  KAKEN_name
西澤, 秀治  KAKEN_name
飯島, 和芳  KAKEN_name
山岸, 貴裕  KAKEN_name
上垣内, 崇行  KAKEN_name
橋田, 巌  KAKEN_name
保坂, 典子  KAKEN_name
Author's alias: Okaneya, Toshikazu
Nishizawa, Shuji
Iijima, Kazuyoshi
Yamagishi, Takahiro
Kamigaito, Takayuki
Hashida, Iwao
Hosaka, Noriko
Keywords: Voiding symptom
Storage symptom
Prostate cancer
Seed implant
Issue Date: Apr-2012
Publisher: 泌尿器科紀要刊行会
Journal title: 泌尿器科紀要
Volume: 58
Issue: 4
Start page: 185
End page: 191
Abstract: A total of 320 localized prostate cancer patients including 272 at low-risk and 48 at intermediate-risk were treated with permanent iodine-125 seed implants. Changes of lower urinary tract symptoms after the treatment were analyzed for one consecutive year using international prostate symptom score, quality of life (QOL) score and uroflowmetry. These patients did not have prostate hypertrophy or were not treated with any α1 blocker before the seed implant. Tamsulosin (0.2 mg/day) was prophylactically administered to all the patients for six months beginning the day after the seed implant. Both voiding and storage symptoms developed even in patients without any urinary symptoms before seed implant and worsened during the consecutive three months ; and, QOL also worsened after seed implant. Lower urinary tract symptoms continued to be significantly severe for six months compared with that before the seed implant, then improved gradually to almost the initial level after one year. It seems to take longer for storage symptoms to diminish to the initial level compared with voiding symptoms. Neoadjuvant hormone therapy improved neither voiding nor storage symptoms in patients without prostate hypertrophy less than 40 ml in volume. In conclusion, a more effective α1 blocker or other potent prophylactic drug therapy should be used on the patients after seed implant because the disadvantage of seed implant is probably only urinary disturbance.
Rights: 許諾条件により本文は2013-05-01に公開
PubMed ID: 22684258
Appears in Collections:Vol.58 No.4

Show full item record

Export to RefWorks

Export Format: 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.