These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Matched-pair analysis of conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost versus external-beam radiation therapy alone for locally advanced prostate cancer.
    Author: Kestin LL, Martinez AA, Stromberg JS, Edmundson GK, Gustafson GS, Brabbins DS, Chen PY, Vicini FA.
    Journal: J Clin Oncol; 2000 Aug; 18(15):2869-80. PubMed ID: 10920135.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: We performed a matched-pair analysis to compare our institution's experience in treating locally advanced prostate cancer with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone to EBRT in combination with conformal interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boosts (EBRT + HDR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1991 to 1998, 161 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were prospectively treated with EBRT + HDR at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. Patients with any of the following characteristics were eligible for study entry: pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of >/= 10.0 ng/mL, Gleason score >/= 7, or clinical stage T2b to T3c. Pelvic EBRT (46.0 Gy) was supplemented with three (1991 through 1995) or two (1995 through 1998) ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial iridium-192 HDR implants. The brachytherapy dose was escalated from 5.50 to 10.50 Gy per implant. Each of the 161 EBRT + HDR patients was randomly matched with a unique EBRT-alone patient. Patients were matched according to PSA level, Gleason score, T stage, and follow-up duration. The median PSA follow-up was 2.5 years for both EBRT + HDR and EBRT alone. RESULTS: EBRT + HDR patients demonstrated significantly lower PSA nadir levels (median, 0.4 ng/mL) compared with those receiving EBRT alone (median, 1.1 ng/mL). The 5-year biochemical control rates for EBRT + HDR versus EBRT-alone patients were 67% versus 44%, respectively (P <.001). On multivariate analyses, pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, T stage, and the use of EBRT alone were significantly associated with biochemical failure. Those patients in both treatment groups who experienced biochemical failure had a lower 5-year cause-specific survival rate than patients who were biochemically controlled (84% v 100%; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Locally advanced prostate cancer patients treated with EBRT + HDR demonstrate improved biochemical control compared with those who are treated with conventional doses of EBRT alone.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]