Radical Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: Local Persistence of Disease Results in a Late Wave of Metastases

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (15) ◽  
pp. 3199-3205 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Coen ◽  
Anthony L. Zietman ◽  
Harjot Thakral ◽  
William U. Shipley
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Distant Metastasis ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Distant Failure ◽  
Radical Radiation ◽  
Late Wave ◽  
Over Time

PURPOSE: To assess whether failure to maintain local control (LC) of prostate cancer after radiation therapy results in a higher incidence of distant metastasis (DM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1972 to 1999, 1,469 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with radical radiation therapy. Disease outcome was retrospectively reviewed for all patients with more than 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The actuarial 10-year LC rate was 79%. Gleason score ≥ 7, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) more than 15, and T3 to T4 tumors predicted a higher incidence of local failure (LF) (palpable recurrence or positive rebiopsy). The 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was 74%. Gleason score ≥ 7, PSA more than 15, and T3 to T4 tumors predicted a higher incidence of distant failure. LF was the strongest predictor for DM in a multivariate model. The 10-year DMFS for LC and LF patients was 77% and 61%, respectively. Median time to distant failure was prolonged in patients with LF compared with patients with locally controlled disease (54 v 34 months). Hazard rate analysis of the time to DM revealed that patients who maintain LC have a lower rate of DM, which remains constant over time. Patients who ultimately develop LF have a higher initial rate of DM, which increases with time. CONCLUSION: Patients with locally persistent prostate cancer are at greater risk of DM. The higher initial hazard of DM is consistent either with an increased likelihood of subclinical micrometastases before treatment or with posttreatment tumor embolization. The prolonged time to appearance of DM in locally failing patients and the increasing hazard of DM over time is most consistent with a late wave of metastases from a locally persistent tumor.

scholarly journals Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (18) ◽  
pp. 2182-2190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
R. Bryan Rumble ◽  
D. Andrew Loblaw ◽  
Antonio Finelli ◽  
Behfar Ehdaie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
American Society

Purpose To endorse Cancer Care Ontario’s guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel. Recommendations For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

scholarly journals Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen A. Scherr ◽  
Angela Fagerlin ◽  
Timothy Hofer ◽  
Laura D. Scherer ◽  
Margaret Holmes-Rovner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Active Treatment ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Medical Factors

Objective. To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods. We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients’ baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients’ interest in sex. Results. Patients’ initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists’ recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists’ recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients’ interest in sex (<15% of appointments). Conclusions. Patients’ treatment decisions were based largely on urologists’ recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients’ personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.

scholarly journals Needle biopsy size and pathological Gleason Score diagnosis: No evidence for a link

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Cicione ◽  
Francesco Cantiello ◽  
Cosimo De Nunzio ◽  
Andrea Tubaro ◽  
Rocco Damiano
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Kappa Statistic ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Needle Size ◽  
Biopsy Needle ◽  
Biopsy Gleason Score

Background: Biopsy Gleason score (GS), in combination with other clinical parameters, is important to take a therapeutic decision for patients with diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. However, preoperative GS is often upgraded after a radical prostatectomy. Increasing the amount of tissue in prostate biopsy may be a way to avoid this issue. We evaluate the influence of a larger biopsy needle size on the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS.Methods: We analyzed paired biopsies and prostatectomy specimens from 104 cases of men with clinically localized prostate cancer. At the time of prostate biopsy, the patients were prospectively randomized into two needle groups (16-Gauge [G] and 18G) using a 1:1 ratio. GS concordance was estimated performing kappa statistic testing, overall concordance rate and risk to under grade biopsy GS=6. A logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the patients’ characteristics as possible risk factors.Results: The overall concordance between prostate biopsy and pathological GS was 76.9% and 75.6% (p = 0.875) and the k values were 0.821 and 0.811 (p = 0.424), respectively, for 16G and 18G needle study groups. The risk to undergrade a biopsy GS=6 was 21.1% and 15.4% (p = 0.709) using a 16G and 18G needle, respectively. Age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and needle calibre were not independently associated with a higher risk of GS discordance.Conclusions: Needle size does not affect the concordance between biopsy and pathological GS. Although GS is not the only way to determine treatment, it is still an unresolved urological issue.

scholarly journals Influence of body mass index on prostate-specific antigen failure after androgen suppression and radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

Cancer ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 109 (8) ◽  
pp. 1493-1498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Efstathiou ◽  
Ming-Hui Chen ◽  
Andrew A. Renshaw ◽  
Marian J. Loffredo ◽  
Anthony V. D'Amico
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Suppression
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document