Surgical management versus combination radiotherapy in Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 135-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Christopher Dee ◽  
Martin T. King ◽  
Santino Butler ◽  
Zizi Yu ◽  
Sybil Sha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Surgical Management ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Pathologic Features

135 Background: For men with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, studies have demonstrated conflicting results on the outcomes from combination radiation therapy (ComboRT) with external beam radiation therapy plus brachytherapy boost versus radical prostatectomy (RP), with or without adjuvant radiation therapy (ART). Differences in patient selection and management may explain some of the disparate outcomes of prior reports. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database identified 10,396 men managed with ComboRT versus RP (+/-ART). Competing-risks regression analysis with treatment propensity adjustment defined hazard ratios (aHR) for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), controlling for patient-specific demographic factors. To explore the possible effect of patient selection, analyses were conducted before and after excluding men from analysis if they had evidence-based indications for ART (adverse pathology, i.e. pT3-T4 or positive margins) but did not receive it. Results: Median age was 64 years; median follow-up was 69 months. Five-year PCSM was similar between patients treated with RP (with or without ART, regardless of pathologic features, N=8,934) and ComboRT (N=1,462) (6.9% vs 8.1%, aHR=0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78–1.13, P=0.51). After excluding RP-treated men with adverse pathology who did not receive ART (N=4,527 excluded), patients treated with RP+/-ART (N=4,407) had improved 5-year PCSM compared with those treated with ComboRT (5.3% vs 8.1%, aHR=0.74, 95% CI 0.60–0.91, P=0.004). Conclusions: For Gleason 9-10 prostate cancer, ComboRT was associated with similar PCSM compared to RP, but risk-tailored surgical management may be associated with superior PCSM.

scholarly journals A Three-Dimensional-Printed Patient-Specific Phantom for External Beam Radiation Therapy of Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher L. Lee ◽  
Max C. Dietrich ◽  
Uma G. Desai ◽  
Ankur Das ◽  
Suhong Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Ejaculatory Duct ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
External Beam Radiation Therapy ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation

This paper presents the design evolution, fabrication, and testing of a novel patient and organ-specific, three-dimensional (3D)-printed phantom for external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer. In contrast to those found in current practice, this phantom can be used to plan and validate treatment tailored to an individual patient. It contains a model of the prostate gland with a dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL), seminal vesicles, urethra, ejaculatory duct, neurovascular bundles, rectal wall, and penile bulb generated from a series of combined T2-weighted/dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) images. The iterative process for designing the phantom based on user interaction and evaluation is described. Using the CyberKnife System at Boston Medical Center, a treatment plan was successfully created and delivered. Dosage delivery results were validated through gamma index calculations based on radiochromic film measurements which yielded a 99.8% passing rate. This phantom is a demonstration of a methodology for incorporating high-contrast MR imaging into computed-tomography-based radiotherapy treatment planning; moreover, it can be used to perform quality assurance (QA).

Do urologists and radiation oncologists agree on adjuvant radiation therapy for prostate cancer? A web-based patterns-of-care survey.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 76-76
Author(s):  
T. N. Showalter ◽  
K. A. Teti ◽  
K. A. Foley ◽  
S. W. Keith ◽  
E. J. Trabulsi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Biochemical Control ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radiation Oncologists ◽  
Pathologic Features

76 Background: Three randomized trials support adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) over observation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PC) patients with adverse pathologic features (APFs), but many clinicians instead favor early salvage RT (SRT) for a rising PSA. We conducted a web-based survey of U.S. radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (U) regarding ART and SRT. Methods: We designed a web-based survey to evaluate beliefs about post-RP RT and treatment policies. Survey invitations were e-mailed to SUO members and a list of 926 RO ASTRO members with an interest in PC. One email was sent to limit message burden. Only those responses at least 50% complete were included in the analysis. Differences in ART recommendation rates were evaluated by chi square test. Results: Responses were received from 231 RO and 101 U, resulting in 302 analyzable responses (88 U, 214 RO). 79% of U and 32% of RO respondents were academic physicians. ART was recommended based on APF alone (78% RO, 44% U), based on APF plus Gleason score or PSA (14% RO, 35% U), only for detectable PSA (7% RO, 14% U), or never (2% RO, 7% U). When asked the effect of ART on outcomes, most respondents replied “improves survival” (71% RO, 63% U) or “improves biochemical control but not survival” (29% RO, 30% U), but 9% of U replied “delays PSA recurrence, but no durable benefit” or “no improvement in any outcomes” (versus 0% RO). A recommendation for ART based on APFs alone was made for: seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (76% RO, 59% U; p=0.003), extracapsular extension (ECE) (70% RO, 32% U; p<0.001), positive surgical margin (PSM) (91% RO, 48% U; p<0.002). For patients with Gleason score 8-10 PC, ART was recommended for: SVI (75% RO, 56% U; p=0.001), ECE (73% RO, 45% U; p<0.001), PSM (93% RO, 74% U; p<0.001). Reported PSA threshold for SRT was: any detectable (36% RO, 23% U), 0.2-0.3 (50% RO, 36% U), 0.4-0.5 (9% RO, 30% U), 0.6-0.8 (3% RO, 10% U) ng/mL, or higher (1% RO, 1% U). Conclusions: Despite similar rates of belief that ART improves survival or biochemical control, U were less likely than RO to recommend ART based solely on APFs after RP. Upcoming results of clinical trials of ART versus SRT may provide consensus for decisions in this setting. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Gleason pattern 5 as a pathologic predictor of recurrence, development of metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific death for patients receiving salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 151-151
Author(s):  
William C. Jackson ◽  
Skyler B. Johnson ◽  
Corey Foster ◽  
Darren Li ◽  
Benjamin Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Gleason Pattern ◽  
The Impact

151 Background: The presence of primary, secondary, and tertiary Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) in prostate cancer has been shown to predict outcomes and improve risk stratification following radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, the predictive value of GP5 has not been assessed in salvage EBRT (SRT) for a rising PSA after RP. We sought to assess the prognostic capability of the presence of GP5 in this setting. Methods: 575 patients who received SRT at a single institution for biochemical recurrence after RP were retrospectively reviewed in an IRB approved analysis. We assessed the impact of GP5 on biochemical failure (BF), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox Proportional Hazards models. Results: Median follow up was 56.7 months post SRT. On pathologic evaluation, 563 patients had a documented Gleason score (GS). 60 patients (10.7%) had primary, secondary, or tertiary GP5. GP5 was the strongest pathologic predictor of DM (p<0.01 HR: 1.9 [95%CI: 1.3-2.9]) and PCSM (p<0.01 HR: 4.0 [95%CI: 2.1-7.7]) on univariate analysis. The presence of GP5 was a better predictor of BF, DM, PCSM, and OS than stratification by GS8-10. Patients with GP5 had clinically worse outcomes than GS8 patients without GP5. There was no difference in outcome between primary, secondary, and tertiary GP5. On multivariate analysis, GP5 was the strongest pathologic predictor of BF (p<0.01 HR: 2.7 [95%CI: 1.6-4.5]), DM (p<0.01 HR: 11.2 [95%CI: 3.9-32.2]), and PCSM (p<0.01 HR: 6.0 [95%CI: 1.8-19.6]). Conclusions: In SRT, where pathologic factors including extra-capsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and margin status are known, the presence of GP5 is the strongest pathologic predictor of BF, DM, and PCSM. Traditional GS risk stratification fails to fully utilize the prognostic capabilities of individual GP’s for SRT patients following RP. Intensification of treatment regimens, such as early use of androgen deprivation therapy or adjuvant radiation, may be appropriate for patients with GP5 in this setting.

Role of Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joelle Helou ◽  
Andrew Loblaw
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Postoperative Setting

Radiation is a standard treatment approach in the treatment of prostate cancer, in either a definitive or postoperative setting. There is mounting evidence of improved cancer outcomes with higher doses of radiation in all risk categories, including low-risk prostate cancer patients. Technical advances with the emergence of inverse planning intensity-modulated techniques combined with image guidance have allowed for dose escalation using external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, despite more accurate treatment delivery, dose-escalated radiation has consistently translated into increased toxicity. Stereotactic body radiotherapy and brachytherapy offer great means of dose escalation to the prostate without increasing the dose to the surrounding organs. Radiation options for low-risk patients include hypofractionated EBRT and brachytherapy monotherapy. Intermediate-risk patients can be divided into favorable and unfavorable groups. For favorable-risk disease, monotherapeutic approaches could be considered, whereas for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk disease, a combination of therapies must be considered. In the postoperative setting, adjuvant radiation improves biochemical outcomes in patients with adverse pathologic features (pT3 and/or positive margins).   This review contains 2 figures, 5 tables, 1 video and 135 refereces Key words: prostate cancer, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, stereotactic ablative body radiation, hypofractionation, hormonal therapy

Role of Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joelle Helou ◽  
Andrew Loblaw
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Postoperative Setting

Radiation is a standard treatment approach in the treatment of prostate cancer, in either a definitive or postoperative setting. There is mounting evidence of improved cancer outcomes with higher doses of radiation in all risk categories, including low-risk prostate cancer patients. Technical advances with the emergence of inverse planning intensity-modulated techniques combined with image guidance have allowed for dose escalation using external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, despite more accurate treatment delivery, dose-escalated radiation has consistently translated into increased toxicity. Stereotactic body radiotherapy and brachytherapy offer great means of dose escalation to the prostate without increasing the dose to the surrounding organs. Radiation options for low-risk patients include hypofractionated EBRT and brachytherapy monotherapy. Intermediate-risk patients can be divided into favorable and unfavorable groups. For favorable-risk disease, monotherapeutic approaches could be considered, whereas for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk disease, a combination of therapies must be considered. In the postoperative setting, adjuvant radiation improves biochemical outcomes in patients with adverse pathologic features (pT3 and/or positive margins).   This review contains 2 figures, 5 tables, 1 video and 135 refereces Key words: prostate cancer, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, stereotactic ablative body radiation, hypofractionation, hormonal therapy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document