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. BJU Int 109Suppl 1:22-29

Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle, WA, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.53). 02/2012; 109 Suppl 1:22-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10827.x
Source: PubMed


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


Available from: Peter Grimm, Jul 25, 2014
  • Source
    • "LDR-brachytherapy has been one of the definitive treatment modalities for prostate cancer alongside radical prostatectomy and IMRT, not only for low-risk patients but also for intermediate and high-risk patients in recent years [11]. The most recent report revealed that the biochemical recurrence-free rate of patients who received LDR-brachytherapy was similar to that of patients who received radical prostatectomy [1-5]. The present study also showed a favorable oncologic outcome according to the Phoenix definition. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background To assess the biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free rate in patients who underwent prostate low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-brachytherapy), using two different definitions (Phoenix definition and PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL). Methods Two hundreds and three patients who were clinically diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (cT1c-2cN0M0) and underwent LDR-brachytherapy between July 2004 and September 2008 were enrolled. The median follow-up period was 72 months. We evaluated the BCR-free rate using the Phoenix definition and the PSA cut-off value of 0.2 ng/mL, as in the definition for radical prostatectomy. To evaluate an independent variable that can predict BCR, Cox’s proportional hazard regression analysis was carried out. Results The BCR-free rate in patients using the Phoenix definition was acceptable (5-year: 92.8%). The 5- year BCR-free rate using the strict definition (PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL) was 74.1%. Cox’s proportional hazard regression analysis showed that a higher biological effective dose (BED) of ≥180 Gy2 was the only independent variable that could predict BCR (HR: 0.570, 95% C.I.: 0.327-0.994, p = 0.048). Patients with a higher BED (≥180 Gy2) had a significantly higher BCR-free rate than those with a lower BED (<180 Gy2) (5-year BCR-free rate: 80.5% vs. 67.4%). Conclusions A higher BED ≥180 Gy2 promises a favorable BCR-free rate, even if the strict definition is adopted.
    Full-text · Article · May 2014 · Radiation Oncology
  • Source
    • "The analysis, authored by Grimm et al., provides some insight into the relative effectiveness of surgery and RT for high-risk disease [12]. Combination therapies involving RT and brachytherapy plus or minus ADT appear superior to more localized treatments such as RP alone or RT alone [12]. In the present study, OS and PSA outcomes following RP or 3D-CRT were compared among high-risk Pca patients who were matched for pretreatment predictors. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background To date, the different treatment modalities for high-risk prostate cancer (Pca) have not been compared in any sufficiently large-scale, prospective, randomized clinical trial. We used propensity-score matching analysis to compare the oncological outcomes of high-risk prostate cancer between patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and those treated with radiation therapy (RT). Methods We studied 216 patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by RP (RP cohort) and 81 patients who received neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by RT (RT cohort). The RP cohort received a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and estramustine phosphate (280 mg/day) for 6 months prior to RP. The RT cohort received ADT for at least 6 months prior to RT using a 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy technique. The total radiation dose was 70 to 76 Gy administered at 2 Gy/fraction. Results Propensity-score matching identified 78 matched pairs of patients. The 3-year overall survival rates were 98.3% and 92.1% in the RP and RT groups, respectively (P = 0.156). The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were 86.4% and 89.4% in the RP and RT groups, respectively (P = 0.878). Conclusions Our study findings may suggest almost identical cancer control of RP and RT with appropriate neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk Pca. Therefore, issues of health-related quality of life may have an important impact on decision making in treatment of high-risk Pca.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2014 · World Journal of Surgical Oncology
  • Source
    • "After a very high dose of radiation such as after pPPI, an estimated 5–20% of low-intermediate risk patients and up to 50% of high-risk patients may experience biochemical failure [2] [3] [14]. "
    [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.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2013 · Radiotherapy and Oncology
Show more