Literature DB >> 10640977

A comparison of external beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for patients with low risk prostate carcinoma diagnosed, staged, and treated at a single institution.

A A Martinez1, J A Gonzalez, A K Chung, L L Kestin, M Balasubramaniam, A C Diokno, E L Ziaja, D S Brabbins, F A Vicini.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors retrospectively reviewed their institution's long term experience treating a group of comparably staged low risk prostate carcinoma patients with either radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy (RT) to determine whether the method of treatment resulted in significant differences in biochemical control and/or survival.
METHODS: From January of 1987 through December of 1994, 382 patients (157 who underwent radical prostatectomy and 225 who received external beam RT) were treated with curative intent for localized prostate carcinoma at William Beaumont Hospital. All patients had a pretreatment serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level < or =10.0 ng/mL and a biopsy Gleason score </=6. Patients treated with RT received a median dose of 66.6 gray (Gy) (range, 59.2-70.2 Gy) to the prostate. Patients treated surgically underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy with a pelvic lymph node dissection. For surgical patients, biochemical failure was defined as a detectable PSA level > or =0.2 ng/mL at any time after prostatectomy. For RT patients, biochemical failure was defined according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel definition. Pretreatment PSA levels and Gleason scores were not significantly different between patients treated with radical prostatectomy or RT. The median follow-up in each treatment group was 5.5 years.
RESULTS: The 7-year actuarial rates of biochemical control and cause specific survival were not significantly different between patients treated either with radical prostatectomy or RT (67% vs. 69% for biochemical control and 99% vs. 97% for cause specific survival, respectively). A number of clinical, pathologic, and treatment-related factors were analyzed for an association with biochemical failure (i.e., age, pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, and treatment modality). Only pretreatment PSA and Gleason score were significantly related to outcome in both univariate and multivariate analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Low risk prostate carcinoma patients with similar pretreatment PSA levels and biopsy Gleason scores treated at the same institution with either radical prostatectomy or RT achieved similar 7-year rates of biochemical control and cause specific survival, regardless of treatment technique. These findings suggest that for patients with pretreatment PSA levels </=10 ng/mL and Gleason scores </=6, conventional doses of external beam RT and radical retropubic prostatectomy can be expected to produce comparable treatment results unaffected by age at diagnosis. Copyright 2000 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10640977     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000115)88:2<425::aid-cncr25>3.0.co;2-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  16 in total

1.  Radical versus postoperative radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a 10-year experience of an academic hospital.

Authors:  Emilios E Pakos; Pericles G Tsekeris; Evita J Pitouli; Stergiani P Gritzeli; Evangelos Briasoulis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-05-10       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Prostate cancer treatment. The case for radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Miles A Goldstraw
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  [High-dose rate brachytherapy for high-risk prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Schenck; K Krause; R Schwandtner; I Haase; D Fluehs; J Friedrich; T Jaeger; C Boergermann; H Ruebben; M Stuschke
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Age and androgen-deprivation therapy on exercise outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Angela S Alberga; Roanne J Segal; Robert D Reid; Chris G Scott; Ronald J Sigal; Farah Khandwala; James Jaffey; George A Wells; Glen P Kenny
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 5.  The current and potential role of cryoablation as a primary therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Aaron E Katz; John C Rewcastle
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 6.  [Curative radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer. Treatment methods and results].

Authors:  R Schwarz
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  [Differential therapy of prostate cancer].

Authors:  T Jäger; H Rübben; C Börgermann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 0.743

8.  Prostate cancer-specific survival differences in patients treated by radical prostatectomy versus curative radiotherapy.

Authors:  Julie M Degroot; Michael D Brundage; Miu Lam; Susan L Rohland; Jeremy Heaton; William J Mackillop; D Robert Siemens; Patti A Groome
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Stability of time trade-off utilities for health states associated with the treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher S Saigal; Jeffrey Gornbein; Kristen Reid; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Exclusive image guided IMRT vs. radical prostatectomy followed by postoperative IMRT for localized prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis based on risk-groups.

Authors:  Caroline Azelie; Mélanie Gauthier; Céline Mirjolet; Luc Cormier; Etienne Martin; Karine Peignaux-Casasnovas; Gilles Truc; Jérôme Chamois; Philippe Maingon; Gilles Créhange
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.