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: Intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer in the PSA era: radiotherapeutic alternatives.
    Author: Gondi V, Deutsch I, Mansukhani M, O'Toole KM, Shah JN, Schiff PB, Katz AE, Benson MC, Goluboff ET, Ennis RD.
    Journal: Urology; 2007 Mar; 69(3):541-6. PubMed ID: 17382161.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively compare the biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) of patients treated with standard dose external beam radiotherapy (SD-EBRT), SD-EBRT plus androgen deprivation (AD), and brachytherapy-based treatment (brachytherapy with or without EBRT with or without AD). METHODS: All 297 patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with these radiation-based treatments at our institution from August 1989 to June 2001 were included. Biochemical relapse was defined according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition, a prostate-specific antigen level of 1.5 ng/mL or greater and rising on two consecutive occasions (the "Bolla" definition), and the current prostate-specific antigen nadir plus 2 ng/mL with failure dated "at call" (the "Houston/Phoenix" definition). The number of patients treated with SD-EBRT, SD-EBRT plus AD, and brachytherapy-based treatment was 141, 84, and 72, respectively. The year of treatment was analyzed as a prognostic factor. The median follow-up was 32.3, 34.7, and 41.5 months for the ASTRO, Bolla, and Houston/Phoenix definitions, respectively. RESULTS: The brachytherapy-based treatment resulted in improved BDFS compared with SD-EBRT (ASTRO definition, 5-year BDFS rate 88% +/- 5% versus 49% +/- 5%, P <0.01; Bolla definition, 88% +/- 8% versus 49% +/- 5%, P <0.01; Houston/Phoenix definition, 81% +/- 10% versus 64% +/- 5%, P = 0.01). SD-EBRT plus AD was superior to SD-EBRT alone using the Bolla definition (5-year BDFS 76% +/- 7% versus 49% +/- 5%, P <0.01) and the Houston/Phoenix definition (85% +/- 6% versus 64% +/- 5%, P = 0.01), but not using the ASTRO definition (P = 0.17). Multivariate analysis, including prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, Gleason score, and year of treatment, demonstrated improved biochemical outcomes for brachytherapy-based treatment versus SD-EBRT (ASTRO, P <0.01; Bolla, P <0.01; and a trend toward significance with Houston/Phoenix, P = 0.07) and for the addition of AD to SD-EBRT (Bolla, P <0.01 and Houston/Phoenix, P = 0.03). The year of treatment trended toward significance (P = 0.077) on multivariate analysis using the ASTRO definition. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, brachytherapy-based treatment and the addition of AD to SD-EBRT resulted in improved biochemical outcomes compared with the outcomes with SD-EBRT alone; however, these findings were dependent on the definition of biochemical failure used. The year of treatment may be an important prognostic factor in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]