Influence of follow-up bias on PSA failure after external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: Results from a 10-year cohort analysis

2003 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J Coen ◽  
Christine S Chung ◽  
William U Shipley ◽  
Anthony L Zietman
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Psa Failure

Trends in the quality of external beam radiotherapy for elderly men with localized prostate cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6507-6507 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. Bekelman ◽  
M. J. Zelefsky ◽  
T. L. Jang ◽  
E. M. Basch ◽  
D. Schrag
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Conformal Radiotherapy ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Radiation Oncologist ◽  
Elderly Men ◽  
Radiation Oncologists

6507 Background: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is a commonly used for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Yet, secular trends in the delivery of this highly technical therapy have received little attention. Methods: Using data from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare program, we evaluated trends in five EBRT quality measures among 23,018 patients age 65 or older diagnosed from 1994 to 2002 with clinically localized prostate cancer and treated with primary EBRT. Using tumor registry data from SEER and Medicare claims, we excluded 6,956 patients who received brachytherapy and 7,009 patients who received combination EBRT and brachytherapy. We identified treating radiation oncologists via unique physician identification numbers reported on claims and obtained board certifications from the AMA Masterfile. We assessed the five EBRT quality measures proposed by a RAND expert panel that were amenable to analysis using SEER-Medicare data: 1) use of conformal radiotherapy treatment planning; 2) use of high-energy (=10MV) photons; 3) use of custom immobilization; 4) radiation oncologist board certification; and 5) completion of two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist in the year following therapy. Results: As shown in the table , conformal radiotherapy increased over the study period. Approximately one-third of patients received consistent follow-up from a radiation oncologist in the year following therapy. Notably, however, claims data revealed that 80% of patients completed at least two follow-up visits with either urologists or radiation oncologists. Conclusions: Conformal radiotherapy is now routine for elderly men with localized prostate cancer. Observed practice patterns deviate from the RAND metric for patient follow-up, suggesting that this measure merits clarification. Future research should examine whether variation in receipt of these quality measures affects important clinical outcomes. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]

Timing of high-dose rate brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy in intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer (THEPCA) patients and its effects on toxicity and quality of life: Results of a randomized feasibility trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Imtiaz Ahmed ◽  
Sharon Shibu Thomas ◽  
Alexander Cain ◽  
Jufen Zhang ◽  
Sreekanth Palvai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Hdr Brachytherapy

236 Background: Advances in brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and image-guided radiotherapy have revolutionized radiotherapy delivery. Acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities remain a significant issue. Currently there is no European consensus on the timing of high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy in relation to EBRT. Schedules of HDR boost before or after EBRT vary significantly between institutions.The incidence of GI and GU toxicities was assessed in patients receiving HDR brachytherapy before and after EBRT. Methods: Men with Intermediate/high risk localized prostate cancer were randomized to Arm A (HDR brachytherapy before EBRT) or Arm B (HDR brachytherapy after EBRT). Both arms received a HDR boost of 15Gy and 46Gy in 23 fractions of EBRT. All patients received neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for up to 2 years. Patients were followed quarterly up to a year. CTCAE scores for GU and GI toxicities were taken. IPSS, IEFL and FACT-P scores were collected. Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze the association between GU and GI toxicities. The T-test compared the mean differences in IPSS total scores at each follow-up. Analysis of variance evaluated the difference at follow up. Post-hoc testing and Bonferroni correction was applied. Results: 100 patients were randomized between 2015 and 2017. Data for 88 patients was available at cutoff. Mean age was 69 years (SD: 4.6). Age, Gleason score, TNM and clinical staging were similar in each arm. Mean IPSS Score was similar between both arms at baseline Arm A (6.52) & Arm B (6.57). 12 months follow up showed mild worsening of symptoms in both arms, but no significant difference noticed between Arm A (8.02) & Arm B (8.14) p=0.55. At 12 months, Grade 1 and 2 GU toxicities were more frequent in Arm A (22.88% & 5.28%, p=0.669) compared to Arm B (19.36% and 2.64%, p=0.485). Grade 1 GI toxicity was more common in Arm B (23.76%) than Arm A (21.2%), p=0.396. Grade 2 GI toxicities were more common in Arm A 5.28% vs 3.52%, p=0.739. Baseline mean IIEF scores were 10.9 and 10.53 in Arm A and B respectively. At 12 months this was 6.6 in Arm A and 7.11 in Arm B, but not statistically significant. FACT-P scores were not different in either arm, with good QOL scores maintained throughout. Mean score at baseline (125.18) was observed to be similar at 12 months follow up at (126.10). The PTV, CTV & OAR dose were compared and no significant differences were found. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in GI and GU related toxicities up to a year between patients receiving HDR brachytherapy before or after EBRT. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms with good QOL scores. Longer follow up and a phase III multicenter RCT would be needed to validate findings. Clinical trial information: NCT02618161.

scholarly journals Addition of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy or Brachytherapy Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (26) ◽  
pp. 3024-3031 ◽  
Author(s):  
William C. Jackson ◽  
Holly E. Hartman ◽  
Robert T. Dess ◽  
Sam R. Birer ◽  
Payal D. Soni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Brachytherapy Boost ◽  
Meta Analyses

PURPOSE In men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or a brachytherapy boost (BT) to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been shown to improve various oncologic end points. Practice patterns indicate that those who receive BT are significantly less likely to receive ADT, and thus we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the predicted outcomes of a randomized trial of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review identified published randomized trials comparing EBRT with or without ADT, or EBRT (with or without ADT) with or without BT, that reported on overall survival (OS). Standard fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjust for use and duration of ADT. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. Bayesian analyses were also performed, and a rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses to create a surface under the cumulative ranking curve. RESULTS Six trials compared EBRT with or without ADT (n = 4,663), and 3 compared EBRT with or without BT (n = 718). The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81]), whereas the addition of BT did not significantly improve OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.36]). In a network meta-analysis, EBRT plus ADT had improved OS compared with EBRT plus BT (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]). Bayesian modeling demonstrated an 88% probability that EBRT plus ADT resulted in superior OS compared with EBRT plus BT. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that current practice patterns of omitting ADT with EBRT plus BT may result in inferior OS compared with EBRT plus ADT in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. ADT for these men should remain a critical component of treatment regardless of radiotherapy delivery method until randomized evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document