PURPOSE: Biochemical failure after definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer may occur in a substantial number of patients. The pattern and type of treatment offered to such patients have been poorly documented. We determined second treatment patterns in patients with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 303 patients treated with RP who had biochemical failure were identified from CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Lake Forest, Illinois), a national longitudinal registry of men with prostate cancer. Failure was defined as 2 or more prostate specific antigen (PSA) values 0.2 or greater following RP. The timing and type of secondary cancer treatment were determined. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to determine significant predictors of time to secondary treatment, and logistic regression was used to determine predictors of the type of secondary treatment (androgen deprivation versus radiation). RESULTS: Of the 303 patients with biochemical failure 102 (33.7%) received second treatment a mean of 12 months after failure was documented. Second treatments were divided between androgen deprivation (57%) and radiation (43%). On multivariate analysis predictors of second treatment were clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score and PSA at failure. Patients with higher PSA at diagnosis and seminal vesicle invasion were more likely to receive androgen deprivation than radiation as second treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Second treatment timing and type after biochemical failure for patients initially treated with RP were documented. Clinical characteristics, such as PSA, Gleason score and clinical stage, can be used to determine which patients are at highest risk for second treatment after RP and can help guide subsequent treatment decisions.
PURPOSE: Biochemical failure after definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer may occur in a substantial number of patients. The pattern and type of treatment offered to such patients have been poorly documented. We determined second treatment patterns in patients with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 303 patients treated with RP who had biochemical failure were identified from CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Lake Forest, Illinois), a national longitudinal registry of men with prostate cancer. Failure was defined as 2 or more prostate specific antigen (PSA) values 0.2 or greater following RP. The timing and type of secondary cancer treatment were determined. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to determine significant predictors of time to secondary treatment, and logistic regression was used to determine predictors of the type of secondary treatment (androgen deprivation versus radiation). RESULTS: Of the 303 patients with biochemical failure 102 (33.7%) received second treatment a mean of 12 months after failure was documented. Second treatments were divided between androgen deprivation (57%) and radiation (43%). On multivariate analysis predictors of second treatment were clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score and PSA at failure. Patients with higher PSA at diagnosis and seminal vesicle invasion were more likely to receive androgen deprivation than radiation as second treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Second treatment timing and type after biochemical failure for patients initially treated with RP were documented. Clinical characteristics, such as PSA, Gleason score and clinical stage, can be used to determine which patients are at highest risk for second treatment after RP and can help guide subsequent treatment decisions.
Authors: Dmitry Koulikov; Maura C Mohler; Diana C Mehedint; Kristopher Attwood; Gregory E Wilding; James L Mohler Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael J Barry; Michael A Delorenzo; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; F Lee Lucas; David C Wennberg Journal: BJU Int Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: T N Showalter; K A Foley; E Jutkowitz; C D Lallas; E J Trabulsi; L G Gomella; A P Dicker; L T Pizzi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Sarah J Nelson; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Peder E Z Larson; Andrea L Harzstark; Marcus Ferrone; Mark van Criekinge; Jose W Chang; Robert Bok; Ilwoo Park; Galen Reed; Lucas Carvajal; Eric J Small; Pamela Munster; Vivian K Weinberg; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Albert P Chen; Ralph E Hurd; Liv-Ingrid Odegardstuen; Fraser J Robb; James Tropp; Jonathan A Murray Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 17.956