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: The role of external radiotherapy in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy.
    Author: Potters L, Fearn P, Kattan M.
    Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2002; 5(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 15195130.
    Abstract:
    To examine the difference in Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)-Relapse Free Survival (RFS) in patients (pts) with prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) alone (monotherapy) or combined modality PPB and external radiotherapy (CMT) by a matched pair analysis. There were 1476 pts who were treated loosely based on the American Brachytherapy Society criteria for monotherapy or CMT. PSA-RFS was based upon the Kattan modification of the ASTRO consensus panel definition. A computer generated matching process was undertaken to produce two equally weighted pairs of patients divided by treatment methodology and Kaplan-Meier PSA-RFS curves were generated and compared by chi(2) testing. All pts were treated between 1992 and 2000 with a 6-y PSA-RFS of 81.9%. The median follow-up was 34.7 months. Patients treated with CMT presented with higher pre-treatment PSA values, Gleason sum score, clinical stage, risk classification, and were more likely to be treated with neoadjuvant hormones. A matched-pair analysis with 314 pts in each group was created stratified by the addition of neoadjuvant hormones, Gleason score sum and the pretreatment PSA value. Actuarial 5-y PSA-RFS was 77.0% for the monotherapy group and 81.1% for the combined therapy group (P=0.54).chi(2) testing by pretreatment PSA value, Gleason score sum, risk stratification, isotope and the addition of neoadjuvant hormones failed to identify any group with a significant difference in 5-y PSA-RFS. In conclusion, this retrospective study presents a large cohort of patients treated with PPB that failed to identify a significant advantage for the addition of combined therapy. A matched pair analysis performed also failed to identify any significant difference based on treatment modality.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]