Literature DB >> 12788181

The prognostic significance of Gleason Grade in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy.

Louis Potters1, Rosemary Purrazzella, Sheryl Brustein, Paul Fearn, David Huang, Steven A Leibel, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the difference in biochemical freedom from relapse (BFR) between patients with clinically localized prostate cancer having Gleason Grade (GG) 3 + 4 vs. 4 + 3 disease treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: One thousand twenty-nine consecutive T1/T2 patients underwent PPB with Gleason sum 6, 7, or 8 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Treatment consisted of transperineal ultrasound-guided implant as monotherapy or in combination with external beam radiation and/or neoadjuvant androgen ablation (NAAD). The Kattan modification of the ASTRO consensus definition that censors patients with rising follow-up PSA values early was used to measure BFR. Kaplan-Meier actuarial survival was calculated and compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess the role of Gleason grade, initial PSA value, stage, the addition of external beam radiotherapy, and the addition of NAAD.
RESULTS: The median follow-up for all 1029 patients is 46 months (range: 3-108 months) with a BFR at 5 years of 78.2% and at 7 years of 76.2%. The 7-year BFR for patients with GG 3 + 3 was 81.8%, GG 3 + 4 was 78.4%, GG 4 + 3 was 56.7%, and GG 4 + 4 was 50.7% (p < 0.0001). Cox regression analysis identified that the Gleason grade (p < 0.0001), initial PSA value (p = 0.001), D90% (p < 0.0001), and clinical stage (p = 0.016) were associated with biochemical recurrence, whereas NAAD (p = 0.057) and external beam radiotherapy (p = 0.356) were not.
CONCLUSIONS: Gleason sum 7 tumors in patients treated with PPB represent a heterogeneous group of patients based on the differentiation of Gleason Grade 3 + 4 tumors vs. 4 + 3 disease. This information confirms similar conclusions identified in patients treated with external beam radiation and is useful when determining prognosis after PPB.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12788181     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(03)00009-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  6 in total

1.  Treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Bulent Akduman; E David Crawford
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

2.  Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?

Authors:  Natasha C Townsend; Karen Ruth; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Eric M Horwitz; Mark Sobczak; Robert G Uzzo; Rosalia Viterbo; Mark K Buyyounouski
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 11.908

3.  Evaluation of rectal bleeding factors associated with prostate brachytherapy.

Authors:  Manabu Aoki; Kenta Miki; Hiroshi Sasaki; Masato Kido; Jun Shirahama; Sayako Takagi; Masao Kobayashi; Chikara Honda; Chihiro Kanehira
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-25       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  Review by urological pathologists improves the accuracy of Gleason grading by general pathologists.

Authors:  Yasushi Nakai; Nobumichi Tanaka; Keiji Shimada; Noboru Konishi; Makito Miyake; Satoshi Anai; Kiyohide Fujimoto
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.264

5.  Efficacy and safety of high-dose-rate brachytherapy of single implant with two fractions combined with external beam radiotherapy for hormone-naïve localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yasutaka Noda; Morio Sato; Shintaro Shirai; Kazushi Kishi; Takeshi Inagaki; Takeshi Mori; Isao Hara
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Predicting Biochemical Disease-Free Survival after Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Risk-Stratification and Patterns of Failure.

Authors:  Alan Katz; Silvia C Formenti; Josephine Kang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 6.244

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.