High-dose rate brachytherapy in localized penile cancer: short-term clinical outcome analysis
© Rouscoff et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 16 April 2014
Accepted: 10 June 2014
Published: 19 June 2014
To assess clinical outcomes of high-dose rate interstitial brachytherapy (HIB) in localized penile carcinoma.
Material and methods
From 03/2006 to 08/2013, patients with biopsy-proven T1-T2 (<4 cm) non-metastatic localized penile squamous cell carcinoma underwent HIB. Under general anaesthesia, after Foley catheter placement, needles were placed in the target volume using a dedicated template. Planification was carried out with a post-implant CT-scan to deliver a total dose of 36 Gy in 9 fractions over 5 days (in adjuvant setting) or 39 Gy in 9 fractions over 5 days (as monotherapy). Dose-volume adaptation was manually achieved using graphical optimization. Dosimetric data and clinical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Toxicities were graded using the CTC v4.0.
With a median follow-up of 27 months [5.1-83], 12 patients including 8 T1a, 3 T1b and 1 T2 N0 underwent HIB (sole therapy: 11 pts; adjuvant: 1 pt). The actuarial 5-year relapse-free, cause-specific and overall survival rates were 83%, 100% and 78% respectively. Comparing pre and post treatment evaluation, no IPSS or IIEF-5 changes were reported. Dermatitis was reported systematically 1 month after HIB including 6 G1, 5 G2 and 1 G3. Only 1 experienced long-term G3 successfully treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. One urethral meatus stenosis G3 required meatotomy.
In selected patients with T1-T2 localized penile cancer, HIB may be considered as an optional conservative therapy. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm these encouraging preliminary results.
With a yearly incidence of 1 out of 100 000 men in Europe and the United States, penile cancer remains a rare disease. Historically, the standard treatment for localized tumors is partial amputation bringing psychological distress for the men’s body [1, 2]. For this reason, conservative treatment comparable to the management of breast cancer has been developed with the principle of maintaining organ function while maintaining oncological results. These conservative treatments are based on close collaboration between the surgeon and the radiation oncologist both in terms of therapeutic approach and follow-up. Indeed, the organization of an alternate monitoring between the urologist and radiation oncologist allows the patient to benefit from two distinct expertise centered on the same pathology.
Low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy is a validated therapeutic modality in localized penile tumors T1-2 < 4 cm [3, 4]. For radioprotection and dose distribution optimization considerations as well as therapeutic comfort of the patient, high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDB) has become a standard treatment in many cancers (cervical , breast  and prostate ). The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of HDB for penile cancers classified T1a, T1b or T2 < 4 cm according to the TNM 2009 .
Materials and methods
We performed a retrospective, single-center, descriptive study evaluating the results of HDB performed for patients with a localized penile cancer.
From March 2006 to August 2013, at the Centre Antoine Lacassagne (Nice, France) with the collaboration of the Urology department of the Nice University Hospital, 12 patients (pts) with histologically confirmed penile cancers were treated by HDB. Preoperatively, all patients underwent a complete physical examination to assess the depth extension completed if needed by a penile MRI. An ultrasound of the inguinal area (without or with biopsy in suspected cases of lymphadenopathy) and abdominopelvic CT were performed to assess nodal and metastatic status in accordance with the recommendations of the Cancer Committee of the French Association of Urology (AFU) .
Clinical, technical and dosimetric data
Min - Max
Tumour size (mm)
Time interval S/B (months)
[5.1 - 83]
Total delivered dose (Gy)
[3.5 - 4.5]
# of fractions
[0.46 - 0.67]
HDR brachytherapy planification
HDR brachytherapy delivery
The treatment takes place in a bunker while the patient remains lying in his bed. The length of each fraction depends on the number of implanted vectors and the activity of the radioactive source at the time of the treatment and is around ten minutes. Throughout the duration of hospitalization, the patient remains in a conventional non-shielded room. The treatment is performed in optimal conditions of radioprotection for the medical staff and the patient’s family (visits possible). Indeed, the patient is carrying a radioactive source only during the few minutes of treatment in the morning and the afternoon. These conditions allow making the necessary care (prevention of decubitus complications, local care…) safe for nursing staff.
After the last irradiation session and patient premedication (paracetamol, tramadol, and midazolam), all the needles and the urinary catheter were removed. The patient left the hospital with a prescription for local care for radio dermatitis localized in the irradiated area. It usually occurred in the week following the end of treatment and can last up to 4 to 8 weeks (clear and precise information is given to the patient regarding the occurrence of acute skin side effects).
Equivalent dose at 2 Gy for αβ ratio = 10 (EQD2αβ10 for tumor tissue) and for αβ ratio = 3 (EQDαβ3 for healthy tissue) were calculated. D90 (dose delivered to 90% of CTV, expressed as a percentage of the prescribed dose) and V100 (volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose, expressed as % of CTV), V150 (volume receiving 150% of the prescribed dose expressed as % of CTV) and V200 (volume receiving 200% of the prescribed dose, expressed as % of CTV) were studied. DHI (Dose Homogenity Index) and D10u (dose delivered to 10% of the urethral volume) and D30u (dose delivered to 30% of the urethral volume) were also reported.
Analysis of oncological results
A clinical examination of the penile and inguinal areas was conducted and completed if necessary with an inguinal ultrasound exam, penis MRI or positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorine 18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose. Treatment failure (post-treatment relapse) was defined as a biopsy of the treated zone confirming local recurrence of the disease or the occurrence of nodal or metastatic disease. Local recurrence-free survival, overall and specific survival rates were calculated. The median time to onset of relapse was calculated from the date of treatment and the date of onset of recurrence. For disease-free survival, 2 situations were analyzed: local recurrence and/or regional lymph node recurrence (inguinal and/or iliac).
Analysis of functional results
A reference pre-treatment status for urinary (International Prostate Symptom Score - IPSS), and sexual (International Index of Erectile Function 5-item - IIEF -5) functions as well as skin status were established. Post-treatment toxicities were scored according to CTCv4.0 classification . At each follow-up visit (1, 6, 12 and 24 months), the evaluation of urinary function was based on the IPSS and the presence or absence of urethral stricture. Sexual function was analyzed with the IIEF-5 score. The skin condition was analyzed according to clinical examination focusing on assessing scarring, pigmentation, telangiectasia, induration or tenderness into the irradiated volume. The rate of penile preservation at the end of follow-up was also calculated.
Data were analyzed using software R3.0.1. Quantitative data were represented as median, extreme, mean and standard deviation. Qualitative data were represented as frequency, percentage and 95% confidence interval. Overall survival was defined as the time between the date of diagnosis and death from any cause. Local recurrence-free and/or inguinal-free survivals were defined as the time between the date of diagnosis and date of local recurrence or the date of inguinal recurrence. These data were estimated and represented at different time intervals with their 95% confidence using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients were censored at the time of death or at last follow-up. A matched analysis by a nonparametric Friedman test was used. The level of significance was set at a p-value < 0.05.
With a median follow up of 27 months [5.1 - 83], the median age was 77 years [47–84]. According to the TNM UICC classification, patients were classified : pT1a (8 pts - 66%), pT1b (3 pts - 25%) and pT2 (1 pt - 9%). The median tumor size was 25 mm [9–32]. Nine patients (75%) had a tumor of the glans, 3 pts (25%) had involvement of the coronal sulcus. The median time between surgery and brachytherapy was 120 days [18–364]. Median pre-operative IPSS and IIEF-5 scores were respectively 2 [0–18] and 16 [5–25].
The median CTV was 12.1 cc [4–42], the median D90 was 106% [83–118]. The median dose per fraction was 4 Gy [3.5 - 4.5] with a median number of fractions of 9 [7–10] (Table 1). The median total delivered dose was 38.5 Gy [34–43] corresponding to a EQD2αβ10 of 46 Gy [41–54] and EQDαβ3 of 57.5 Gy [47–68]. The median V100, V150 and V200 were 93% [78–99], 40.5% [29–57] and 15% [11–22] of the CTV. The median DHI was 0.5 [0.46 - 0.67]. The median D10u and D30u were respectively 126% [59–217] and 115% [27–177].
The penile preservation rate was 91.7% with one patient who presented a local recurrence treated by total amputation of the penile.
In case of localized penile cancer, interstitial brachytherapy after circumcision is considered as the standard conservative treatment [3, 4]. Compliance with brachytherapy indication for penile cancer determines the oncological and functional results. In fact, tumor size > 4 cm and stage ≥ T3 (invasion of the urethra) significantly increases the risk of relapse [10–13] and skin necrosis [13, 14] after brachytherapy. In addition, the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie of the European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) recommended performing between 3 and 6 procedures per year to be able to offer this treatment modality implying the notion of expert center . Low and pulsed-dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy represented until recent years the reference technique [15, 16]. However, the evolution of brachytherapy techniques, after-loading machines, treatment planning software and more stringent rules of radiation safety have positioned high-dose rate brachytherapy as the reference technique for numerous indication such cervical and prostate tumors [5–7, 15, 17]. But clinical data of HDR brachytherapy for penis cancer remains rare. To our knowledge, we reported clinical and functional results of the largest study of interstitial HDR brachytherapy for localized cancer of the penis.
Comparative clinical outcome analysis from brachytherapy series
LC 5y (%)
CSS 5y (%)
Chaudhary et al. 
De Crevoisier et al. 
Crook et al. 
Delannes et al. 
Kiltie et al. 
Mazeron et al. 
Rozan et al. 
Soria et al. 
Petera J et al. 
The median time to onset of loco-regional recurrence in our study was 7.7 months [6–9.4]. Similar data are reported in the literature with the notion that most of loco-regional recurrences occur in the first two years after treatment . However, De Crevoisier et al.  observed 10-year local, inguinal and metastatic recurrence rates of 20%, 11% and 6% respectively. Moreover, Solsona et al.  reported a late recurrence rate of 2.5%. It is therefore necessary to recommend a prolonged surveillance and provide education to patients to detect these late local, lymph node and metastatic relapses.
The only series of HDR brachytherapy for penile cancers has been published by Petera et al. . The authors reported the results of a cohort of 10 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penile. Eight pts were classified as T1N0M0, 1 pt TisN0M0 and 1 pt T1N1M0. Ninety percent of the tumors were localized to the glans. With a median follow up of 20 months [3.4 - 90.6], the authors reported a loco-regional relapse-free survival rate of 100%. The total delivered dose was 54 Gy (3 Gy/f, 2 fractions/day over 9 days). No patient presented urethral stenosis or penile necrosis. Concerning sexual evaluation, patients retained equivalent results to what was observed preoperatively. Our shorter regimen (5 days) reports similar results in terms of local control while significantly reducing the length of hospitalization.
In case of local relapse after primary brachytherapy, a salvage surgery by partial amputation of the penile, with sufficient safety margin, leads to survival rates without second local recurrence, equivalent to those obtained after surgery for primary tumors. Indeed, salvage surgical series report 10-year specific survival rate ranged from 84% to 92% similar to those described in the case of initial surgery [19, 20]. Second relapse rates after salvage radical non-conservative surgery for local relapse range between 0 and 7.1% , while the loss of the organ has a deleterious psychological impact.
Regarding functional urinary outcomes, the urethra is considered as the main organ at risk. The issue of brachytherapy is to limit the impact on urinary function while preserving the oncological outcome. The measurement of IPSS at different follow-up visits confirmed the absence of significant degradation of urinary function after HDR brachytherapy. In the literature, various studies of LDR/PDR brachytherapy evaluated post-brachytherapy urinary status by the presence or absence of urethral stenosis (most serious urinary complication). In our series, the rate of urinary stenosis was 9% (1 pt), whereas in the series of LDR/PDR brachytherapy, this rate varies between 8 and 45% [12–14, 16, 21–23]. Generally, stenosis is treated by dilatation or endoscopically. While urethral stenosis remains the major side effect after brachytherapy, the possibilities of optimizing the dose distribution to the urethra offered by PDR/HDR brachytherapy can reduce the risk of urinary side effects.
In our study, post-brachytherapy IIEF-5 score evaluation compared to the pre-therapeutic status confirmed the absence of significant deterioration of the sexual function after HDR brachytherapy. Although penile cancer and its treatment can have a negative impact on sexual function, this functional aspect is poorly documented in the literature. Maddineni et al.  reported that mutilating treatment for penile cancer caused a significant decline in well-being and an increase of pathological anxiety for more than 30% of patients and psychiatric symptoms for 50% of patients. Two thirds of patients reported a decrease in sexual activity after mutilating surgery. In a retrospective study, Crook et al.  reported a conservation rate of sexual function of 40%. In their series of HDR brachytherapy, Petera et al.  reported that 90% of patients preserved their sexual function at the end of follow-up. Interestingly, in a surgical study of 18 patients treated by partial amputation, Romero et al.  reported that 33% of patients conserved a similar sexual status compared to the preoperative period.
After penile brachytherapy, the most severe late skin complication is necrosis. In our series, 1 pt (9%) who received the highest dose (43 Gy; EQD2αβ3 68 Gy), presented skin necrosis successfully treated with hyperbaric oxygen. Gomez-Iturriaga et al.  used also successfully hyperbaric oxygen therapy in 7 pts with skin necrosis post-brachytherapy. In the literature, the rate of skin necrosis ranged between 0 to 26% of cases depending on the series [12–14, 16, 21–23] while this complication has never been described after surgery. However, acute skin complications are much more common. In our series, 90% of patients had radio dermatitis (G2 41%). This is a classic acute complication after radiation therapy for which the patient must be informed. This complication should heal within 3 months after brachytherapy. Other lesions observed in the treated area were hyper-pigmentation and telangiectasia (common complications after skin irradiation). Crook et al.  described low-grade cutaneous complications such as hypo-pigmentation, telangiectasia and fibrosis in 33% of cases. De Crevoisier et al.  reported a 10-year painful ulceration rate of 26%. In the immediate post-brachytherapy period, Petera et al.  noticed that radio dermatitis resolved in 8 weeks, while the authors did not observe any skin necrosis. This last result could be explained by the fact that the median CTV in the Petera study was 7 cc versus 12.1 cc in our series.
In our study, 1 pt (9%) required total amputation of the penis due to local relapse leading to an organ preservation rate of 92%. In the literature, this rate ranged between 72 and 88% [12–14, 16, 21–23].
The limitations of our study are essentially represented by a small number of patients (12) and a short median follow-up (27 months), which is not sufficient to precisely analyze the rate of late relapses occurring after the fifth year of follow-up. On the other hand, objective analysis of post-brachytherapy urinary function would have required before and after brachytherapy, the use of uroflowmetry which remains in this field the standard evaluation tool.
For localized cancers penile (T1-2), brachytherapy after circumcision represented the treatment of choice. Because of its ability to optimize the dose distribution and its low constraints in terms of radiation protection, HDR brachytherapy gradually gains in popularity. For the conservative treatment of penile cancer, this technique seems to give promising oncological and functional results even if the follow-up is too short to allow an accurate comparison to the results published for LDR/PDR brachytherapy. These results need to be confirmed by the publication of larger series of patients with extended follow-up.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of this report and any accompanying images.
- Bullen K, Edwards S, Marke V, Matthews S: Looking past the obvious: experiences of altered masculinity in penile cancer. Psychooncology 2010, 19: 933-940.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chardot C, Adolff-O’Reilly A: Present sequelae and psychological repercussions of Halsted’s operation. A detailed survey of 95 patients. Presse Med 1968, 76: 1813-1816.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pizzocaro G, Algaba F, Horenblas S, Solsona E, Tana S, Van Der Poel H, Watkin NA, European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Group on Penile Cancer: EAU Penile Cancer Guidelines 2009. Eur Urol 2010, 57: 1002-1012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rigaud J, Avancès C, Camparo P, Culine S, Durand X, Iborra F, Mottet N, Sèbe P, Soulié M, Oncology Committee of the French Association of Urology (CCAFU): Recommandations en Onco-Urologie 2010: tumeurs malignes du pénis. Prog Urol 2010,20(Suppl 4):S279-S289.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hannoun-Levi J-M, Chand-Fouche M-E, Gautier M, Dejean C, Marcy M, Fouche Y: Interstitial preoperative high-dose-rate brachytherapy for early stage cervical cancer: dose-volume histogram parameters, pathologic response and early clinical outcome. Brachytherapy 2013, 12: 148-155.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moser EC, Vrieling C: Accelerated partial breast irradiation: the need for well-defined patient selection criteria, improved volume definitions, close follow-up and discussion of salvage treatment. Breast 2012, 21: 707-715.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tran AT, Mandall P, Swindell R, Hoskin PJ, Bottomley DM, Logue JP, Wylie JP: Biochemical outcomes for patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with I-125 interstitial brachytherapy monotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2013, 109: 235-240.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (Eds): TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours 7th edition. Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.Google Scholar
- Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. Published: May 28, 2009 (v4.03: June 14, 2010) . Access on line 08/12/13 http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_8.5x11.pdf
- Petera J, Sirák I, Kašaová L, Mačingová Z, Paluska P, Zouhar M, Kutílek P, Brod'ák M, Vošmik M: High-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of penile carcinoma–first experience. Brachytherapy 2011, 10: 136-140.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Crook JM, Haie-Meder C, Demanes DJ, Mazeron JJ, Martinez AA, Rivard MJ: American Brachytherapy Society-Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ABS-GEC-ESTRO) consensus statement for penile brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2013, 12: 191-198.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Crook JM, Jezioranski J, Grimard L, Esche B, Pond G: Penile brachytherapy: results for 49 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 62: 460-467.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Delannes M, Malavaud B, Douchez J, Bonnet J, Daly NJ: Iridium-192 interstitial therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992, 24: 479-483.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- De Crevoisier R, Slimane K, Sanfilippo N, Bossi A, Albano M, Dumas I, Dumas I, Wibault P, Fizazi K, Gerbaulet A, Haie-Meder C: Long-term results of brachytherapy for carcinoma of the penile confined to the glans (N- or NX). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74: 1150-1156.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Viswanathan AN, Thomadsen B, American Brachytherapy Society Cervical Cancer Recommendations Committee: American Brachytherapy Society: American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix. Part I: general principles. Brachytherapy 2012, 11: 33-46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rozan R, Albuisson E, Giraud B, Donnarieix D, Delannes M, Pigneux J, Hoffstetter S, Gerbaulet A, Chinet-Charrot P, Goupil A, Couette JE, Hay MH, Chaplain G, Castelain B, Hassel B, Mere P, Cellier P: Interstitial brachytherapy for penile carcinoma: a multicentric survey (259 patients). Radiother Oncol 1995, 36: 83-93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hoskin PJ, Colombo A, Henry A, Niehoff P: Paulsen Hellebust T, Siebert FA, Kovacs G: GEC/ESTRO recommendations on high dose rate afterloading brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer: an update. Radiother Oncol 2013, 107: 325-332.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Soria JC, Fizazi K, Piron D, Kramar A, Gerbaulet A, Haie-Meder C, Perrin JL, Court B, Wibault P, Théodore C: Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: multivariate analysis of prognostic factors and natural history in monocentric study with a conservative policy. Ann Oncol 1997, 8: 1089-1098.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Solsona E, Bahl A, Brandes SB, Dickerson D, Puras-Baez A, van Poppel H, Watkin NA: New developments in the treatment of localized penile cancer. Urology 2010,76(2 Suppl 1):S36-S42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Crook J: Radiation therapy for cancer of the penis. Urol Clin North Am 2010, 37: 435-443.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chaudhary AJ, Ghosh S, Bhalavat RL, Kulkarni JN, Sequeira BV: Interstitial brachytherapy in carcinoma of the penis. Strahlenther Onkol 1999, 175: 17-20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kiltie AE, Elwell C, Close HJ, Ash DV: Iridium-192 implantation for node-negative carcinoma of the penis: the Cookridge Hospital experience. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2000, 12: 25-31.Google Scholar
- Mazeron JJ, Langlois D, Lobo PA, Huart JA, Calitchi E, Lusinchi A, Raynal M, Le Bourgeois JP, Abbou CC, Pierquin B: Interstitial radiation therapy for carcinoma of the penis using iridium 192 wires: the Henri Mondor experience (1970–1979). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1984, 10: 1891-1895.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Maddineni SB, Lau MM, Sangar VK: Identifying the needs of penile cancer sufferers: a systematic review of the quality of life, psychosexual and psychosocial literature in penile cancer. BMC Urol 2009, 9: 8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Crook J, Grimard L, Tsihlias J, Morash C, Panzarella T: Interstitial brachytherapy for penile cancer: an alternative to amputation. J Urol 2002,167(2 Pt 1):506-511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Romero FR, Romero KR, Mattos MA, Garcia CR, Fernandes R de C, Perez MD: Sexual function after partial penectomy for penile cancer. Urology 2005, 66: 1292-1295.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gomez-Iturriaga A, Crook J, Evans W, Saibishkumar EP, Jezioranski J: The efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of medically refractory soft tissue necrosis after penile brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2011, 10: 491-497.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.