Article

Second primary cancer after radiotherapy for prostate cancer - A SEER analysis of brachytherapy versus external beam radiotherapy

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics (Impact Factor: 4.18). 04/2008; 72(1):58-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.12.043
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the incidence of second primary cancers (SPCs) and radiotherapy-induced SPCs (RTSPCs).
The incidence of SPCs and RTSPCs was compared among four treatment groups with locoregional prostate adenocarcinoma in the 1973-2002 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. These groups were no radiotherapy (RT), no surgery (Group 1); external beam RT (EBRT) (Group 2); brachytherapy (Group 3); and a combination of EBRT and brachytherapy (Group 4).
The age-adjusted estimates of SPCs were greater with EBRT than with brachytherapy (2,178 vs. 1,901 SPCs/100,000; p = 0.025) or with the no RT, no surgery group (1,971 SPCs/100,000; p <0.0001). The age-adjusted rate of late SPC (>or=5 years) for EBRT (2,425 SPCs/100,000) was only significantly greater (p <0.0001) than that for no RT, no surgery (1,950 SPCs/100,000). The hazard ratio adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and grade was constant at 1.263 for EBRT compared with no RT, no surgery (p <0.0001) but varied with the length of follow-up in both the brachytherapy (0.721 at 5 years to 1.200 at 9 years) and combination (0.920 at 5 years to 1.317 at 9 years) groups. The incidence of RTSPCs was only significantly different between the no RT, no surgery group and the EBRT group, with an increase of 162 cases/100,000 or a 0.16% increased SPC risk (p = 0.023). No significant differences in the incidence of RTSPC were seen between the RT groups.
No significant differences were seen in the incidence of RTSPCs between the RT groups. The initial smaller relative risk of overall SPCs in the brachytherapy group increased with time until the curves converged, suggesting that the effect had resulted from patient selection bias.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
56 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy (RT) techniques for prostate cancer are evolving rapidly, but the impact of these changes on risk of second cancers, which are an uncommon but serious consequence of RT, are uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of risks of second cancer according to RT technique (>10 MV vs ≤10 MV and 3-dimensional [3D] vs 2D RT) and modality (external beam RT, brachytherapy, and combined modes) in a large cohort of prostate cancer patients. The cohort was constructed using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. We included cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in patients 66 to 84 years of age from 1992 to 2004 and followed through 2009. We used Poisson regression analysis to compare rates of second cancer across RT groups with adjustment for age, follow-up, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and comorbidities. Analyses of second solid cancers were based on the number of 5-year survivors (n=38,733), and analyses of leukemia were based on number of 2-year survivors (n=52,515) to account for the minimum latency period for radiation-related cancer. During an average of 4.4 years' follow-up among 5-year prostate cancer survivors (2DRT = 5.5 years; 3DRT = 3.9 years; and brachytherapy = 2.7 years), 2933 second solid cancers were diagnosed. There were no significant differences in second solid cancer rates overall between 3DRT and 2DRT patients (relative risk [RR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.09), but second rectal cancer rates were significantly lower after 3DRT (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.88). Rates of second solid cancers for higher- and lower-energy RT were similar overall (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89-1.06), as were rates for site-specific cancers. There were significant reductions in colon cancer and leukemia rates in the first decade after brachytherapy compared to those after external beam RT. Advanced treatment planning may have reduced rectal cancer risks in prostate cancer survivors by approximately 3 cases per 1000 after 15 years. Despite concerns about the neutron doses, we did not find evidence that higher energy therapy was associated with increased second cancer risks. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 02/2015; 91(2):295-302. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.040 · 4.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radical/whole gland treatment for prostate cancer has significant side-effects. Therefore focal treatments such as cryotherapy have been used to treat localized lesions whilst aiming to provide adequate cancer control with minimal side-effects. We performed a systematic review of Pubmed/Medline and Cochrane databases' to yield 9 papers for primary focal prostate cryotherapy and 2 papers for focal salvage treatment (radio-recurrent). The results of 1582 primary patients showed biochemical disease-free survival between 71-93% at 9-70 months follow-up. Incontinence rates were 0-3.6% and ED 0-42%. Recto-urethral fistula occurred in only 2 patients. Salvage focal cryotherapy had biochemical disease-free survival of 50-68% at 3 years. ED occurred in 60-71%. Focal cryotherapy appears to be an effective treatment for primary localized prostate cancer and compares favorably to radical/whole gland treatments in medium-term oncological outcomes and side-effects. Although more studies are needed it is also effective for radio-recurrent cancer with a low complications rates.
    Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 11/2014; 14(11):1337-47. DOI:10.1586/14737140.2014.965687 · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the second malignancy incidence in prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy (BT) relative to radical prostatectomy (RP) and to compare both groups with the cancer incidence in the general population.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 09/2014; 90(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.07.032 · 4.59 Impact Factor