scholarly journals Future Prospects in the Diagnosis and Management of Localized Prostate Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmet Tefekli ◽  
Murat Tunc
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Diagnosis And Management ◽  
Specificity And Sensitivity

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the commonest visceral cancer in men worldwide. Introduction of serum PSA as a highly specific biomarker for prostatic diseases has led to a dramatic increase in the diagnosis of early stage PCa in last decades. Guidelines underline that benefits as well as risks and squeals of early diagnosis and treatment should be discussed with patients. There are several new biomarkers (Pro-PSA, PCA-3 test, and TMPRSS2-ERG) available on the market but new ones are awaited in order to improve specificity and sensitivity. Investigators have also focused on identifying and isolating the gene, or genes, responsible for PCa. Current definitive treatment options for clinically localized PCa with functional and oncological success rates up to 95% include surgery (radical prostatectomy), external-beam radiation therapy, and interstitial radiation therapy (brachytherapy). Potential complications of overdiagnosis and overtreatment have resulted in arguments about screening and introduced a new management approach called “active surveillance.” Improvements in diagnostic techniques, especially multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, significantly ameliorated the accuracy of tumor localization and local staging. These advances will further support focal therapies as emerging treatment alternatives for localized PCa. As a conclusion, revolutionary changes in the diagnosis and management of PCa are awaited in the near future.

Comparing the Costs of Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy for the Initial Treatment of Early-Stage Prostate Cancer

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 2869-2875 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey H. Burkhardt ◽  
Mark S. Litwin ◽  
Christopher M. Rose ◽  
Roy J. Correa ◽  
Jonathan H. Sunshine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Treat Analysis

PURPOSE: Radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiation are the most common treatments for localized prostate cancer. Given the absence of clinical consensus in favor of one treatment or the other, relative costs may be a significant factor. This study compares the direct medical costs during the month before and 9 months after diagnosis for patients treated primarily with external-beam radiation or radical prostatectomy for early-stage prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients age 65 or older and coded by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry as having been diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated primarily with external-beam radiation or radical prostatectomy during 1992 and 1993 were identified. The initial treatment costs, as measured by Medicare-approved payment amounts, for each strategy were analyzed using linked SEER-Medicare claims data after adjusting for differences in comorbidity and age. An intent-to-treat analysis was also performed to adjust for differences in staging between the two groups. RESULTS: For patients in the treatment-received analysis, the average costs were significantly different; $14,048 (95% confidence interval [CI], $13,765 to $14,330) for radiation therapy and $17,226 (95% CI, $16,891 to $17,560) for radical prostatectomy (P < .001). The average costs for patients in the intent-to-treat analysis were also significantly less for radiation therapy patients ($14,048; 95% CI, $13,765 to $14,330) than for those who underwent radical prostatectomy ($17,516; 95% CI, $17,195 to $17,837; P < .001). CONCLUSION: For patients with early-stage prostate cancer, average costs during the initial treatment interval were at least 23% greater for radical prostatectomy than for external-beam radiation. Major limitations of the research include not studying costs after the initial treatment interval and questionable current applicability, given changes in management of early prostate cancer.

Relationship of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor to biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy for prostate cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 119-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Leapman ◽  
Janet E. Cowan ◽  
Hao Gia Nguyen ◽  
Sima P. Porten ◽  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors ◽  
Definitive Therapy ◽  
Phosphodiesterase Type

119 Background: Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are commonly utilized among men receiving definitive treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). Recently, contradictory clinical evidence regarding the association between biochemical recurrence (BCR) and receipt of PDE5i has been reported. We aimed to clarify this question among a multi-center, cohort of men with PCa. Methods: Participants enrolled in Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) at diagnosis and received radical prostatectomy, RP, or radiation therapy, RT (external beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy) without androgen deprivation therapy ≤ 6 months. We examined associations between clinical, Prostate Cancer Index Sexual Function score, SF (0-100 (best)), and pathological characteristics as well as baseline, time-dependent and ever-use of PDE5i (patient or physician reported) with risk of BCR using descriptive analyses, Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results: A total of 4,844 men were identified (3,847 RP, 997 RT.) Men received RP at median age 61 years (IQR 56-66), had a mean baseline SF score 62.4 (SD 26.7), were followed for a median of 77 months (IQR 36-117), and 3,089 (80%) were prescribed or reported use of PDE5i post-operatively. Patients treated with RT were older with a median age 69 years (IQR 63-74) and mean baseline SF score 46.6 (SD 29.5), were followed for a median of 91 months (IQR 53-125), and had lower rates of reported PDE5i usage (421 men, 42%). In Cox regression models baseline use (HR = 0.9 (95% CI 0.3-2.4) p = 0.83) and ever-usage (HR = 0.7 (0.5-1.1) p = 0.73) of PDE5i were not independently associated with BCR after RP. Time-dependent use (HR 1.3 (0.6, 2.7) p = 0.45) also was not associated with BCR after RP among men taking PDE5i medications. Baseline (HR = 4.6 (0.6-37.3) p = 0.14) and ever-usage (HR 0.6 (0.3-1.5) p = 0.30) also were not associated with BCR after RT. This study was limited by incomplete data on prescription compliance. Conclusions: PDE5i usage following RP or RT for PCa was not associated with BCR. PDE5i therapy should not be withheld due to concerns that it increases the risk of disease recurrence.

Evaluation of set-up errors and estimation of set-up margin during external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer using electronic portal imaging device (EPID)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Daryoush Khoramian ◽  
Soroush Sistani ◽  
Bagher Farhood
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Cancer Radiotherapy ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Portal Images ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Abstract Aim: In radiation therapy, accurate dose distribution in target volume requires accurate treatment setup. The set-up errors are unwanted and inherent in the treatment process. By achieving these errors, a set-up margin (SM) of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) can be determined. In the current study, systematic and random set-up errors that occurred during prostate cancer radiotherapy were measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The obtained values were used to propose the optimum CTV-to-PTV margin in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Materials and methods: A total of 21 patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) participated in this study. A total of 280 portal images were acquired during 12 months. Gross, population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were obtained based on the portal images in Anterior–Posterior (AP), Medio-Lateral (ML) and Superior–Inferior (SI) directions. The SM of CTV to PTV were then calculated and compared by using the formulas presented by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62, Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al. Results: The findings showed that the population systematic errors during prostate cancer radiotherapy in AP, ML and SI directions were 1·40, 1·95 and 1·94 mm, respectively. The population random errors in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·09, 1·85 and 2·29 mm, respectively. The SM of CTV to PTV calculated in accordance with the formula of ICRU 62 in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·51, 2·68 and 3·00 mm, respectively. And according to Stroom and Heijmen, formula were 4·23, 5·19 and 5·48 mm, respectively. And Van Herk et al. formula were 4·96, 6·17 and 6·45 mm, respectively. Findings: The SM of CTV to PTV in all directions, based on the formulas of ICRU 62, Stroom and Heijmen and van Herk et al., were equal to 2·73, 4·98 and 5·86 mm, respectively; these values were obtained by averaging the margins in all directions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document