Comparison of the Efficacy of Local Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prostate-Specific Antigen Era: A Large Single-Institution Experience With Radical Prostatectomy and External-Beam Radiotherapy

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (16) ◽  
pp. 3376-3385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick A. Kupelian ◽  
Mohamed Elshaikh ◽  
Chandana A. Reddy ◽  
Craig Zippe ◽  
Eric A. Klein
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Treatment Modality ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Biochemical Relapse ◽  
Definition Of

PURPOSE: To review biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rates after either external-beam radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 1,682 patients had pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores (bGS) assigned. No adjuvant therapy was administered after local treatment. RP was the treatment in 1,054 patients (63%) and RT in 628 patients (37%). Median follow-up was 51 months (range, 1 to 134). The median follow-up for RP versus RT patients was 50.5 v 51.0 months. Biochemical relapse was considered detectable PSA levels (> 0.2 ng/mL) in RP patients and three consecutive rising PSA levels in RT patients. The analysis was repeated with a more stringent definition of biochemical control after either RP or RT—namely, reaching and maintaining a PSA level ≤ 0.5 ng/mL—and excluding patients receiving any androgen deprivation (AD). RESULTS: Eight-year bRFS rates for RP versus RT were 72% and 70%, respectively (P = .010). Multivariate analysis indicated T stage (P < .001), pretreatment PSA (P < .001), bGS (P < .001), year of therapy (P < .001), and neoadjuvant AD (P = .019) to be the only independent predictors of relapse. Age (P = .78), race (P = .29), prior transurethral resection of prostate (P = .81), and treatment modality (P = .96) were not independent predictors of treatment failure. Fifty-one percent of RP patients had favorable tumors (T1 to T2A, pretreatment PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL, bGS ≤ 7), compared with only 34% of RT patients (P < .001). Repeat analysis with a stringent definition of biochemical failure and excluding patients receiving AD indicated no impact of treatment modality on outcome. CONCLUSION: Eight-year biochemical failure rates were identical between RT and RP in any subgroup. Outcome is determined mainly by pretreatment PSA levels, bGS, clinical T stage, and, for RT patients, radiation dose.

Outcome Predictors for the Increasing PSA State After Definitive External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 826-831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Zelefsky ◽  
Leah Ben-Porat ◽  
Howard I. Scher ◽  
Heather M. Chan ◽  
Paul A. Fearn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Biochemical Relapse ◽  
Psa Relapse

Purpose To identify predictors of distant metastases (DM) among patients who develop an isolated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse after definitive external-beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods A total of 1,650 patients with clinical stage T1 to T3 prostate cancer were treated with high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Of these, 381 patients subsequently developed three consecutive increasing PSA values and were characterized as having a biochemical relapse. The median follow-up time was 92 months from the completion of radiotherapy. Results The 5-year incidence of DM after an established PSA relapse was 29%. In a multivariate analysis, PSA doubling time (PSA-DT; P < .001), the clinical T stage (P < .001), and Gleason score (P = .007) were independent variables predicting for DM after established biochemical failure. The PSA-DT for favorable-, intermediate-, and unfavorable-risk patients who developed a biochemical failure was 20.0, 13.2, and 8.2 months, respectively (P < .001). The 3-year incidence of DM for patients with PSA-DT of 0 to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 12, and more than 12 months was 49%, 41%, 20%, and 7%, respectively (P < .001). Patients with PSA-DT of 0 to 3 and 3 to 6 months demonstrated a 7.0 and 6.6 increased hazard of developing DM or death, respectively, compared with patients with a DT more than 12 months. Conclusion In addition to clinical stage and Gleason score, PSA-DT was a powerful predictor of DM among patients who develop an isolated PSA relapse after external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Patients who develop biochemical relapse with PSA-DT ≤ 6 months should be considered for systemic therapy or experimental protocols because of the high propensity for rapid DM development.

Combined brachytherapy and external beam radiation for prostate cancer in a community setting

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16147-e16147
Author(s):  
G. J. Kubicek ◽  
G. J. Kubicek ◽  
S. Brown ◽  
S. Redfield
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation

e16147 Background: Prostate cancer is the most common male malignancy, and there is no one standard treatment modality. One treatment option is the combination of external beam radiotherapy and permanent transperineal brachytherapy seed implant Methods: Retrospective review of prostate cancer and side effect outcomes at a single institution in the community setting. All patients were treated with a combination of low dose rate transperineal brachytherapy seed placement and external beam radiation. Results: A total of 897 patients were analyzed, 781 had a minimum follow-up of one year. Median pre-treatment PSA was 8.1 (range 0.3 to 106) and the median Gleason score was 6. With a median follow-up of 3.6 years, 33 (3.4 %) patients had biochemical failure based on the phoenix definition of Nadir + 2. Not including impotence, acute toxicity greater than or equal to Grade 2 was seen in 115 patients (102 GU and 13 GI) and 193 patients had late toxicity greater than or equal to Grade 2 (155 GU and 38 GI). 563 patients received hormone therapy prior to or concurrent with the radiation. Conclusions: This is the largest series reporting on the outcome of combination brachytherpay implant and external beam radiation in the treatment of prostate cancer. Combination treatment using brachytherapy and external beam radiation is well tolerated, with a low rate of biochemical failure and should be considered one of the treatment options for prostate cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Variations in treatment modality use for the definitive management of prostate cancer in the United States.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 174-174
Author(s):  
Jay P. Ciezki ◽  
Chandana A. Reddy ◽  
James Ulchaker ◽  
Kenneth Angermeier ◽  
Kevin L. Stephans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Treatment Modality ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
The United States ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Choice Of Treatment ◽  
To Receive

174 Background: No prospective, randomized comparative efficacy trial exists to guide treatment of definitively managed prostate cancer patients. Despite this, treatment selection varies nationally and we attempt to assess these patterns of use. Methods: The SEER database was queried to identify cases of prostate cancer diagnosed between 1998-2008. The modalities identified were brachytherapy (brachy), combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiation (CombRT), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (RP+RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). The number of cases by year, patient age and SEER region was computed. Results: There were 361,135 men in this analysis: 12.4% brachy, 6.8% CombRT, 27.5% EBRT, 3.1% RP+RT, and 50.3% RP. As expected, treatment modality varied by age with younger men more likely to receive RP and older man more likely to receive EBRT or brachy. There was some variation in choice of treatment modality over time: 6.6% for brachy; 4.2% for CombRT; 1.9% for EBRT; 2.0% for RP+RT; and 7.8% for RP. The variation in treatment modality by region was surprisingly wide (table): 14.4% for brachy; 25.5% for CombRT; 28.5% for EBRT; 3.8% for RP+RT; and 26.8% for RP. Conclusions: Choice of prostate cancer treatment modality varies by age, year of treatment, and most notably geographical region. Surprisingly the changes in reimbursement rates over the study period seem to have had minimal impact on choice of treatment modality. The regional variation implies that affiliations among healthcare providers significantly impact treatment. [Table: see text]

Impact of timing of biochemical failure on the eventual development of clinical failure after definitive treatment with brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 53-53
Author(s):  
Jay P. Ciezki ◽  
Chandana A. Reddy ◽  
Eric A. Klein ◽  
James Ulchaker ◽  
Kenneth Angermeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Psa Testing ◽  
Testing Frequency ◽  
Definitive Therapy

53 Background: Late treatment failure is often considered to be a rare event. We will assess the influence of the timing of biochemical failure (bF) after definitive brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer on its frequency and association with clinical failure (cF). Methods: Patients with prostate cancer treated between 1996 and 2009 with at least 5 years of follow-up (N= 2,293; 1,060 EBRT, 1,233 BT) were studied in the context of an IRB-approved inception cohort study. Those with a bF were reviewed to determine the timing of bF [< 5 years after treatment (bF<5) vs. > 5 years after treatment (bF>5)] and occurrence of cF post-bF. The bF definition used was the nadir + 2.0 ng/mL version. Results: Of the total patient population, 477 (21%) were noted to have bF- 244 (11%) bF<5 vs. 233 (10%) bF>5. The median follow-up after bF for the bF< 5 group is 41 months while in the bF> 5 group it is 22 months. In the BT group, 94 (8%) failed < 5 years and 87 (7%) failed > 5 years. In the EBRT group, 150 (14%) failed < 5 years and 146 (14%) failed > 5 years. The median PSA value (ng/mL) at the time of bF for all patients, EBRT, and BT in the bF<5 group was 3.70, 3.65, and 3.80, respectively (p=not significant). The median PSA value (ng/mL) at the time of bF for all patients, EBRT, and BT in the bF>5 group was 3.01, 3.01, and 3.04, respectively (p=not significant). Overall, 53.3% of patients in the bF<5 group developed cF while 27% of patients in the bF>5 group developed a cF. The actuarial five year rate of cF for the bF <5 group was 50% vs. 38% for the bF>5 group (p= 0.028). The detection of bF and cF was closely linked to PSA testing frequency ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The risk of bF does not appear to decrease >5 years post treatment. Late bF (i.e. >5 years after treatment) may still result in eventual cF. While cF is less common after bF > 5 years post definitive therapy, it still affects 27% of those with bF and is strongly associated with PSA testing frequency. The lower rate of cF after 5 years may relate to the shorter follow-up time for this group.

Prostate Cancer: Transrectal High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the Treatment of Local Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy or Radiotherapy

2009 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Tasso ◽  
F. Varvello ◽  
U. Ferrando
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Focused Ultrasound ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
High Intensity Focused Ultrasound ◽  
Biochemical Relapse ◽  
Vesicourethral Anastomosis ◽  
Disease Free

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) as salvage therapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy or recurrences located in the region of vesicourethral anastomosis after radical prostatectomy. Methods Transrectal biopsy of the prostate (recurrence after radiotherapy) or in the region of vesicourethral anastomosis (recurrence after prostatectomy) was performed in all cases at the time of biochemical relapse. Only patients with positive biopsy were treated. Systemic disease was excluded by PET-CT and bone scan. All treatments were carried out under spinal anesthesia. The device used was Ablatherm (EDAP, Lion, France). The patients were followed with PSA measurement every 3 months and clinical examination every 6 months. In case of biochemical relapse we performed re-biopsy. Results From 2002 to 2008 we treated 19 patients with local recurrence after radiotherapy. The mean follow-up was 30 months for each patient (range 6–72 months). 9 patients (47%) are disease-free at last follow-up, with PSA < 1 ng/mL. 9 patients experienced biochemical failure: 8 were treated with androgen deprivation, 1 with salvage prostatectomy. 2 patients died of the disease. Adverse events related to HIFU included 1 rectourethral fistula (observed before the use of specific parameters dedicated to this patient population) and mild incontinence (2–3 pads/die) in 4 patients. From 2002 to 2008 we treated 27 patients with a local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Mean pre-HIFU PSA was 2.17 ng/mL (range 0.5–8 ng/ml); the Gleason score ranged from 5 to 8. All patients reached a minimum follow-up of 20 months (range 20–80 months). Median PSA nadir was 0.2 ng/ml. The disease-free rate was 51% (14/27); these patients have a median PSA of 0.2 ng/ml at last follow-up. 81% (22/27) of control biopsies were negative. There were no intra-operative or post-operative complications. Conclusions The small number of patients in our series limits our ability to draw any definitive conclusions. We believe that HIFU may be a potentially useful treatment option for patients who develop prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy or in the region of vesicourethral anastomosis after radical prostatectomy. The procedure is safe, side effects are acceptable and do not add significant morbidity to the previous radical treatment. HIFU lesions are targeted only to the area of recurrence. It is important to remember that, in case of failure, the patient can undertake any other therapies.

Role of interstitial radiotherapy in the management of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer: the jury is still out.

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 304-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
A V D'Amico ◽  
C N Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
High Dose ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Interstitial Radiotherapy

PURPOSE AND DESIGN To discuss the evolution of the use of brachytherapy in the treatment of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer and to review modern techniques, results of therapy, and optimal patient selection criteria. RESULTS Using modern localization and immobilization techniques, interstitial prostate radiotherapy for patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level less than 10 ng/mL yields an at least 87% rate of freedom from biochemical relapse at 3 years, which is numerically equivalent to results achieved with external-beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. With a minimum median follow-up time of 24 months, 81% to 85% (2-year actuarial and 3-year crude) potency rates have been reported concomitant with 2-year actuarial rates of 12% for grade > or = 2 rectal complications and 10% for grade > or = 3 urethral complications. CONCLUSION The combination of clinical stage, PSA level, and biopsy Gleason sum allows for selection of patients with the highest probability of having all of the prostate cancer encompassed by the high-dose implant volume, while simultaneously respecting the normal-tissue tolerance doses of the juxtaposed normal tissues (rectum and bladder). In particular, patients with nonpalpable (T1c) lesions, a biopsy Gleason sum < or = 6 (ideally < or = 4), and a PSA level less than 10 ng/mL represent the optimal implant candidates. Differential loading of the implant away from the geometric center and not accepting patients with large prostate glands (> or = 60 cm3) or history of a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) as implant candidates, may reduce urethral toxicity. Further follow-up evaluation of prostate cancer patients treated with interstitial radiotherapy will verify if favorable potency preservation rates and rates of freedom from biochemical failure equivalent to those achieved with radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy are maintained.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document