This case involves a middle-aged man who was diagnosed with prostate cancer and elected to undergo treatment via brachytherapy in West Virginia. During the procedure, the doctor failed to correctly place the radioactive seeds into the patient’s prostate, instead placing some of the radioactive material in his perineum. As a result, the man’s urethra was apparently damaged, leaving him incontinent and unable to urinate normally. As a result, the man was forced to use a catheter in order to urinate. Additionally, the patient’s cancer continued to progress due to his botched treatment.
Question(s) For Expert Witness
- 1. How frequently do you perform Transperineal Seed Implementation to Prostate procedures?
-
2. What is the efficacy of the seeds located at the base of the penis in terms of treating cancer inside the prostate?
-
3. What might be some treatment options left for this patient given that the seeds remain at the base of the penis?
Expert Witness Response E-014229
Currently, I perform seed implantation fairly infrequently – maybe once or twice yearly. In the past, I would perform approximately 3 – 4 cases monthly. The efficacy of seeds located at the base of the penis would be low – probably never studied since this is not the anticipated destination of the seeds. The radiation oncologist, dosimetrist, and physicist should be able to calculate the exact dose delivered to the prostate. There still may be an option for external beam radiation therapy if the target is outside of the area already treated. Cryotherapy could also be used but may cause more damage urethra and bladder neck. Given the urethral damage already sustained, if prostate removal were considered, the patient would probably require a urinary diversion.
Contact this expert witness
Related Posts
This case involves an elderly man who had been suffering from a hunched back associated with advanced ankylosing spondylitis. During an MRI, a suspicious mass was identified near his liver incidentally, which prompted doctors to recommend a biopsy of the affected…
This case involves an individual whose personal property was wrongfully seized by the IRS. It was alleged that the IRS wrongfully seized the individual’s property, which consisted of a large quantity of gold and precious stones. The search warrant that…
