Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low dose 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high dose IMRT for localized prostate cancer

Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, 13400 E. Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.
International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics (Impact Factor: 4.18). 07/2007; 68(4):1053-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.01.043
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To identify prognostic factors and evaluate biochemical control rates for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with either high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conventional-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy 3D-CRT.
Four hundred sixteen patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years (median, 5 years) were included. Two hundred seventy-one patients received 3D-CRT with a median dose of 68.4 Gy (range, 66-71 Gy). The next 145 patients received IMRT with a median dose of 75.6 Gy (range, 70.2-77.4 Gy). Biochemical control rates were calculated according to both American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus definitions. Prognostic factors were identified using both univariate and multivariate analyses.
The 5-year biochemical control rate was 60.4% for 3D-CRT and 74.1% for IMRT (p < 0.0001, first ASTRO Consensus definition). Using the ASTRO Phoenix definition, the 5-year biochemical control rate was 74.4% and 84.6% with 3D-RT and IMRT, respectively (p = 0.0326). Univariate analyses determined that PSA level, T stage, Gleason score, perineural invasion, and radiation dose were predictive of biochemical control. On multivariate analysis, dose, Gleason score, and perineural invasion remained significant.
On the basis of both ASTRO definitions, dose, Gleason score, and perineural invasion were predictive of biochemical control. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy allowed delivery of higher doses of radiation with very low toxicity, resulting in improved biochemical control.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer remains a prevalent diagnosis with a spectrum of treatment choices that offer similar oncologic outcomes but differing side effect profiles and associated costs. As the technology for prostate radiation therapy has advanced, its associated costs have escalated, thus making cost-effectiveness analyses critical to assess the value of competing treatment options, including watchful waiting, surgery, brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), proton beam therapy (PBT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 07/2014; DOI:10.1007/s40258-014-0106-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work was to compare toxicity and cancer control between patients with prostate cancer treated using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and those treated using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A total of 553 patients with prostate cancer were treated with 3D-CRT 70-74 Gy (3D-CRT 70, 3D-CRT 74) or IMRT 78-82 Gy (IMRT 78, IMRT/SIB 82). Late toxicity was scored according to FC-RTOG/LENT criteria. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix and ASTRO definitions. The 5-year risk of grade 2-4 genitourinary toxicity was 26.3 % (3D-CRT 70), 27.2 % (3D-CRT 74), 17.3 % (IMRT 78), and 25.1 % (IMRT/SIB 82) without statistical differences. The 5-year risk of grade 2-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was 19.4 % (3D-CRT 70), 42.1 % (3D-CRT 74), 20.5 % (IMRT 78), and 26.6 % (IMRT/SIB 82). The differences between 3D-CRT 74 and 3D-CRT 70 and between 3D-CRT 74 and IMRT 78 were statistically significant (log rank p = 0.03). The 5-year Phoenix PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS) in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients treated using 3D-CRT were 89.4, 65.5, and 57.8 %, respectively. Patients treated with IMRT achieved the following results: 90.9, 89.4, and 83.9 %. Clinical relapse-free survival (C-RFS) in patients treated using 3D-CRT vs. IMRT for the aforementioned groups were 94.7 vs. 100 %, 86.8 vs. 98.6 %, and 84.4 vs. 94.5 %. Disease-free survival (DFS) for patients treated using 3D-CRT were 83.1, 70.9, and 71.5 %. The IMRT group reached 95.8, 89.1, and 87.6 %. The PSA-RFS for intermediate- and high-risk patients were statistically significant, while C-RFS and DFS were marginally better. Dose escalation with IMRT was associated with improved cancer control in intermediate- and high-risk patients in comparison with 3D-CRT, without compromising toxicity.
    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 01/2015; 191(4). DOI:10.1007/s00066-014-0806-y · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In contrast to pharmacological interventions that undergo rigorous clinical testing, recent technological advances in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) have particularly been introduced and driven by economic incentives rather than high-quality clinical evidence. In this review we summarise the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for localised PCa. We emphasise particularly on robotic prostatectomy, new developments in radiotherapy, novel technologies in focal therapy such as cryosurgery and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) has similar oncologic outcomes to open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP); however, patients who undergo RALRP are more likely to have improved short-term potency rates. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton-beam therapy (PBT) have similar oncologic outcomes to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). IMRT has exhibited an improved gastrointestinal side effect profile co
    Japanese Journal of Clinical Urology 01/2014;