Improved Biochemical Disease-Free Survival of Men Younger Than 60 Years With Prostate Cancer Treated With High Dose Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy

Background. Prostate cancer (PCa) in the Russian Federation takes the leading place in the prevalence of cancer among the male population.Objective: to investigate the effect of increasing a single focal dose in high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in combination with external beam radiotherapy on biochemical failure-free survival and local control in patients with high-risk PCa. Materials and methods. The study included 350 men with PCa in the group of high and extremely high risk of progression. All patients included in the study were divided into 4 groups. Groups 1, 2 and 3 included 276 patients who received HDR-BT with a 192Ir source with a single dose per fraction: 10 Gy (n = 83), 12 Gy (n = 46) and 15 Gy (n = 147). Group 4 included 74 patients who received low-dose-rate brachytherapy with 125I sources up to a total focal dose of 110 Gy. At the 2 stage, external beam radiotherapy was a conventional fractionation (single dose of 2 Gy, total - 44-46 Gy).Results. Of 350 patients over a 5-year follow-up period, PCa recurrence was noted in 65 (18.6 %). The 3- and 5-year biochemical failure-free survival rates in the general cohort of patients were 87.4 and 81.4 %. 5-year biochemical failure-free survival was significantly higher in group 3 relative to group 4 and amounted to 89.8 and 74.2 % (p = 0.03). Increasing the dose for HDR-BT from 10 to 12 Gy per fraction significantly reduced the frequency of local relapses from 15.7 % (in group 1) to 2.2 % (in group 2) (p = 0.0001) while maintaining the level of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Conclusion. The use of a combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in patients with high risk PCa is highly effective in achieving local control of the tumor. The optimal fractionation regime for HDR-BT remains a matter of debate. The use of 15 Gy per fraction for HDR-BT in combination with external beam radiotherapy is the most optimal fractionation regimen in patients with high-risk PCa.

Download Full-text

Role of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIC2 endometrial cancer

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer ◽

10.1136/ijgc-2020-001446 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 30 (8) ◽

pp. 1169-1176

Author(s):

Giorgio Bogani ◽

Serena Cappuccio ◽

Jvan Casarin ◽

Deepa Maheswari M Narasimhulu ◽

William A Cilby ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Adjuvant Therapy ◽

External Beam Radiotherapy ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

External Beam ◽

Free Survival ◽

Radiotherapy Alone ◽

Node Metastases ◽

Disease Free

ObjectiveThe role of the different types of adjuvant treatments in endometrial cancer with para-aortic node metastases is unclear. The aim of this study was to report oncologic outcomes after adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIC2 endometrial cancer.MethodsThis retrospective single-institution study assessed patients with stage IIIC2 endometrial cancer who underwent primary surgery from January 1984 to December 2014. All patients had hysterectomy (±salpingo-oophorectomy) plus lymphadenectomy (para-aortic nodes, ±pelvic nodes). We included all patients with stage III endometrial cancer and documented para-aortic lymph node metastases (International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecologists stage IIIC2). We excluded patients who did not provide consent, who had synchronous cancer, or who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Follow-up was restricted to the first 5 years post-operatively. Cox proportional hazards models, with age as the time scale, was used to evaluate associations of risk factors with disease-free survival and overall survival.ResultsAmong 105 patients with documented adjuvant therapy, external beam radiotherapy was administered to 25 patients (24%), chemotherapy to 24 (23%), and a combination (chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy) to 56 (53%) patients. Most patients receiving chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy (80%) had chemotherapy first. The majority of relapses had a distant component (31/46, 67%) and only one patient had an isolated para-aortic recurrence. Non-endometrioid subtypes had poorer disease-free survival (HR 2.57; 95% CI 1.38 to 4.78) and poorer overall survival (HR 2.00; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.65) compared with endometrioid. Among patients with endometrioid histology (n=60), chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy improved disease-free survival (HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71) and overall survival (HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.89) compared with chemotherapy or external beam radiotherapy alone. Combination therapy did not improve prognosis for patients with non-endometrioid histology (n=45).ConclusionsIn our cohort of patients with stage IIIC2 endometrioid endometrial cancer, those receiving chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy had improved survival compared with patients receiving chemotherapy or external beam radiotherapy alone. However, the prognosis of patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer remained poor, regardless of the adjuvant therapy administered. Distant recurrences were the most common sites of failure.

Download Full-text

Interstitial high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy alone for early stage prostate cancer

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.14633 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 14633-14633

Author(s):

R. J. Mark ◽

P. J. Anderson ◽

T. Neumann ◽

M. Nair

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Dose Rate ◽

Gleason Score ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

High Dose Rate ◽

High Dose ◽

Free Survival ◽

Treatment Volume ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Disease Free

14633 Background: Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) guided interstitial implant for prostate cancer using Low Dose Rate (LDR) and High Dose Rate (HDR) technique has been reported with results comparing favorably to surgery and External Beam Radiation Therapy (EBRT). Often, HDR and LDR interstitial implant is combined with EBRT. There is little published data on HDR alone. We report our results with HDR alone. Methods: Between 1997 and 2006, 167 patients with T1 and T2 localized prostate underwent TRUS guided interstitial implant. There were no Gleason Score or PSA exclusions. No patient received EBRT or Hormonal Blockade. Median Gleason Score was 7 (range: 4 to 10). Median PSA was 9.3 (2.7 to 39.8). Treatment volumes ranged from 42 cm3 to 196 cm3. Treatment volume included the prostate and seminal vesicles in all cases. Our protocol for HDR alone, has called for two HDR Implants. The treatment volume received 2,250 cGy in 3 fractions prescribed to the 100% Isodose line, given over 24 hours. A 2nd implant was performed 4 weeks later, delivering a further 2,250 cGy in 3 fractions, bringing the final dose to the prostate to 4,500 cGy in 6 fractions. Urethral dose points (12–16) were followed, and limited to ≤ 105% of the prescription dose. Results: With a median follow-up of 64 months (range: 6 months to 112 months), PSA disease free survival was 89.8% (150/167). Urethral stricture requiring dilatation has developed in 4.2% (7/167) of patients. Urinary stress incontinence has occurred in 3.6% (6/167). RTOG late bladder toxicities were: 0% Grade 4, 0% Grade 3, and 3.6% (6/167) Grade 2. RTOG late rectal toxicities were: 0.6% (1/167) Grade 4, 0% Grade 3, 1.8% (3/167) Grade 2, and 2.4% (4/167) Grade 1. There have been no cases of rectal incontinence to date. Conclusions: Five year results with HDR implant alone compare favorably to EBRT, LDR ± EBRT, and HDR + EBRT, both with regard to PSA disease free survival, and complications. HDR offers other advantages over LDR, such as no radiation exposure to hospital personnel, no seed migration, greater dose flexibility and precision of radiation dose delivery. Larger volumes can be treated with HDR. By omitting EBRT, bladder and rectal complications appear to be significantly reduced. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Doctors’ and Patients’ Preferences for Participation and Treatment in Curative Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2006.07.4955 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 25 (21) ◽

pp. 3096-3100 ◽

Cited By ~ 57

Author(s):

Peep F.M. Stalmeier ◽

Julia J. van Tol-Geerdink ◽

Emile N.J.Th. van Lin ◽

Erik Schimmel ◽

Henk Huizenga ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Decision Making ◽

Radiation Dose ◽

Patient Preferences ◽

Decision Aid ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

High Dose ◽

Free Survival ◽

Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy ◽

Disease Free

Purpose Physicians hold opinions about unvoiced patient preferences, so-called substitute preferences. We studied whether doctors can predict preferences of patients supported with a decision aid. Methods A total of 150 patients with prostate cancer facing radiotherapy were included. After the initial consultation, without discussing any treatment choice, physicians gave substitute judgments for patients' decision-making and radiation dose preferences. Physicians knew that several weeks later, patients would be empowered by a decision aid supporting a choice between two radiation doses involving a trade-off between disease-free survival and adverse effects. Subsequently, patient preferences for decision making (whether or not they wanted to choose a radiation dose) and for treatment (low or high dose) were obtained. The chosen radiation dose actually was administered. Results Of the patients studied, 79% chose a treatment; physicians believed that 66% of the patients wanted to choose. Agreement was poor (64%; κ = 0.13; P = .11), and was better as patients became more hopeful (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4 per unit; P = .001) and as physicians' experience increased (OR = 1.09 per year; P = .02). Twenty percent of physicians' preferences, 51% of physicians' substitute preferences, and 71% of patients' preferences favored the lower dose; agreement was again poor (70%; κ = 0.2; P = .03). Conclusion Physicians had problems predicting the preferences of patients empowered with a decision aid. They slightly underestimated patients' decision-making preferences, and underestimated patients' preferences for the less toxic treatment. Counseling might be improved by first informing patients—possibly using a decision aid—before discussing patient preferences.

Download Full-text