Article

Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group

Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle, WA, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.13). 02/2012; 109 Suppl 1:22-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10827.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Very few comparative studies to date evaluate the results of treatment options for prostate cancer using the most sensitive measurement tools. PSA has been identified as the most sensitive tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. To date, comprehensive unbiased reviews of all the current literature are limited for prostate cancer. This is the first large scale comprehensive review of the literature comparing risk stratified patients by treatment option and with long-term follow-up. The results of the studies are weighted, respecting the impact of larger studies on overall results. The study identified a lack of uniformity in reporting results amongst institutions and centres. A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18,000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Peter Grimm, Jul 25, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
276 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: (1) To establish a method to evaluate dosimetry at the time of primary prostate permanent implant (pPPI) using MRI of the shrunken prostate at the time of failure (tf). (2) To compare cold spot mapping with sextant-biopsy mapping at tf. Twenty-four patients were referred for biopsy-proven local failure (LF) after pPPI. Multiparametric MRI and combined-sextant biopsy with a central review of the pathology at tf were systematically performed. A model of the shrinking pattern was defined as a Volumetric Change Factor (VCF) as a function of time from time of pPPI (t0). An isotropic expansion to both prostate volume (PV) and seed position (SP) coordinates determined at tf was performed using a validated algorithm using the VCF. pPPI CT-based evaluation (at 4weeks) vs. MR-based evaluation: Mean D90% was 145.23±19.16Gy [100.0-167.5] vs. 85.28±27.36Gy [39-139] (p=0.001), respectively. Mean V100% was 91.6±7.9% [70-100%] vs. 73.1±13.8% [55-98%] (p=0.0006), respectively. Seventy-seven per cent of the pathologically positive sextants were classified as cold. Patients with biopsy-proven LF had poorer implantation quality when evaluated by MRI several years after implantation. There is a strong relationship between microscopic involvement at tf and cold spots.
    Radiotherapy and Oncology 11/2013; 109(2). DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.10.028 · 4.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionWe compare the results of modern external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), using combined androgen deprivation and dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with MRI-CT fusion and daily image guidance with fiducial markers (DE-IG-IMRT), with recently published Australian series of brachytherapy and surgery.Methods Five-year actuarial biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCaSS) were calculated for 675 patients treated with DE-IG-IMRT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients had intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) disease. A search was conducted identifying Australian reports from 2005 onwards of IR and HR patients treated with surgery or brachytherapy, reporting actuarial outcomes at 3 years or later.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 59 months, our 5-year bDFS was 93.3% overall: 95.5% for IR and 91.3% for HR disease. MFS was 96.9% overall (99.0% IR, 94.9% HR), and PCaSS was 98.8% overall (100% IR, 97.7% HR). Prevalence of Grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity at 5 years was 1.3% and 1.6%, with 0.3% Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity and no Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. Eight reports of brachytherapy and surgery were identified. The HDR brachytherapy series' median 5-year bDFS was 82.5%, MFS 90.0% and PCaSS 97.9%. One surgical series reported 5-year bDFS of 65.5% for HR patients. One LDR series reported 5-year bDFS of 85% for IR patients.Conclusions Modern EBRT is at least as effective as modern Australian surgical and brachytherapy techniques. All patients considering treatment for localised prostate cancer should be referred to a radiation oncologist to discuss EBRT as an equivalent option.
    Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 02/2015; 59(1). DOI:10.1111/1754-9485.12275 · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To report our preliminary experience of salvage cryosurgery (SCS) for locally recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after primary cryotherapy and determine the efficacy of cryoablation of the prostate in the salvage setting. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective review of the records of all patients who underwent SCS for locally recurrent PCa after primary cryotherapy between February 2008 and March 2012. Patients were assessed after treatment by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, transrectal ultrasonography, radiologic imaging, and biopsy. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix criteria. Results Data from 12 patients who had undergone SCS were entered. Median age at SCS was 77.5 year. Before SCS, patients had a median PSA level of 2.5 ng/ml and median Gleason sum of 7. Patients underwent SCS at a median of 7.8 months after primary CS. Median PSA nadir after SCS was 1.32 ng/ml. The mean (range) follow-up was 33.5 months. Three patients were started on hormonal therapy for disease progression at a median post-SCS period of 12 months. Two patients underwent repeat cryoablation. Only one patient developed mild incontinence after SCS. Urethral sloughing occurred in one patient. Only two patients suffered from transient impotence. Conclusions It is feasible for patients with PCa to adopt SCS when primary cryotherapy has failed. The application of SCS also allows hormonal therapy to be deferred for a sufficient period of time.
    International Urology and Nephrology 12/2014; 47(2). DOI:10.1007/s11255-014-0887-7 · 1.29 Impact Factor