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: Overall survival comparison between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) vs ADT plus EBRT with brachytherapy boost in clinically node-positive prostate cancer. Author: Fischer-Valuck BW, Rao YJ, Brenneman RJ, Patel PR, Filson CP, Jani AB, Liu Y, Goyal S, Xu K, Weiss A, Kucuk O, Cimmino C, Szabo S, Rossi P, Baumann BC, Pattaras J, Hershatter B, Patel SA. Journal: Brachytherapy; 2020; 19(5):557-566. PubMed ID: 32624405. Abstract: PURPOSE: Optimal therapy for clinically node-positive, nonmetastatic (cN1) prostate cancer (PC) patients remains controversial, ranging from aggressive local therapy to palliative systematic therapy alone. Despite guideline support, it is unclear if a brachytherapy (BT) boost should be considered for cN1 patients as these patients were excluded from randomized trials establishing its benefit. Herein, we compare definitive radiation therapy (RT) with or without a BT boost in cN1 PC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify men with cN1 PC treated with definitive RT and concomitant androgen deprivation therapy between 2004 and 2013. Overall survival (OS) was compared between those who received external beam RT (EBRT) or combination EBRT plus BT boost (EBRT + BT) using Kaplan-Meier with propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: With a median followup of 48.5 months, 1,650 patients were eligible for this analysis, 103 (6.2%) of whom received EBRT + BT. Younger age, no medical comorbidities, and Gleason score of six were associated with higher likelihood of receiving EBRT + BT over EBRT alone. The mean (median) OS for EBRT and EBRT + BT was 99.0 (110.6) months vs 109.2 (not reached) months, respectively (p = 0.048). However, no significance difference in OS was observed between the groups after propensity score matching. On multivariable analysis, EBRT + BT was not significantly associated with improved OS (adjusted HR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.41-1.07, p = 0.098). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, observational study of patients with cN1 PC treated with definitive RT and concomitant androgen deprivation therapy, EBRT + BT had an unadjusted improvement in OS compared with EBRT alone that lost statistical significance after multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]