Literature DB >> 15708247

Role of prostate dose escalation in patients with greater than 15% risk of pelvic lymph node involvement.

Rojymon Jacob1, Alexandra L Hanlon, Eric M Horwitz, Benjamin Movsas, Robert G Uzzo, Alan Pollack.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether the radiation dose is a determinant of clinical outcome in patients with a lymph node risk of >15% treated using whole pelvic (WP), partial pelvic (PP), or prostate only (PO) fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 420 patients with prostate cancer treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with or without short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) between June 1989 and July 2000 were included in this study. Patients had an initial pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level of <100 ng/mL and a lymph node index of > or =15% or T2c tumors with a Gleason score of 6-10. No patient had radiologic evidence of lymph node involvement. Of the 460 patients, 48 were treated with PO, 74 with PP, and 298 with WP fields. The median prostate dose was 74 Gy for PO, 82 Gy for PP, and 76 Gy for WP. The median radiation dose to the pelvis was 46 Gy for both PP and WP. Of the 460 patients, 72 underwent STAD for a median of 3 months (range, 3-6 months). Cox regression multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) defined according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology consensus guidelines. Univariate comparisons were done using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test.
RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 43 months, 121 patients had treatment failure: 22, 7, and 92 in the PO, PP, and WP arms, respectively. Independent predictors of FFBF in multivariate analysis included radiation dose, T stage, Gleason score, and initial prostate-specific antigen level. The 5-year FFBF rate by dose group was 48% for <73 Gy, 64% for 73-76.9 Gy, and 74% for > or =77 Gy (p = 0.002). The use of STAD and radiation field size were not significantly associated with FFBF.
CONCLUSION: The radiation dose was the most significant determinant of FFBF in patients with a lymph node risk >15% in the patient population studied. These data suggest that the primary tumor takes precedence over lymph node coverage or the use of STAD. Doses >70 Gy are of paramount importance in such intermediate- and high-risk patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15708247     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.06.023

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


  9 in total

Review 1.  Individualized image-based lymph node irradiation for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hanneke J M Meijer; Oscar A Debats; Emile N J Th van Lin; Marco van Vulpen; J Alfred Witjes; Wim J G Oyen; Jelle O Barentsz; Johannes H A M Kaanders
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Prognostic impact of nodal relapse in definitive prostate-only irradiation.

Authors:  Mauro Loi; Luca Incrocci; Isacco Desideri; Pierluigi Bonomo; Beatrice Detti; Gabriele Simontacchi; Daniela Greto; Emanuela Olmetto; Giulio Francolini; Icro Meattini; Lorenzo Livi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Prostate-specific antigen nadir within 12 months of prostate cancer radiotherapy predicts metastasis and death.

Authors:  Pino Alcantara; Alexandra Hanlon; Mark K Buyyounouski; Eric M Horwitz; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Reduces Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients Treated with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Navesh K Sharma; Tianyu Li; David Y Chen; Alan Pollack; Eric M Horwitz; Mark K Buyyounouski
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Outcome of patients with localized prostate cancer treated by radiotherapy after confirming the absence of lymph node invasion.

Authors:  Noriyuki Suzuki; Masaki Shimbo; Yoshiyasu Amiya; Susumu Tomioka; Takayuki Shima; Shino Murakami; Hiroomi Nakatsu; Sayako Oota; Jun Shimazaki
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Is it necessary to remove the seminal vesicles completely at radical prostatectomy? decision curve analysis of European Society of Urologic Oncology criteria.

Authors:  Fernando P Secin; Fernando J Bianco; Angel Cronin; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Bertrand Guillonneau; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy in combination with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: are high-risk patients good candidates?

Authors:  Ken Yoshida; Hideya Yamazaki; Tadashi Takenaka; Tadayuki Kotsuma; Mineo Yoshida; Koji Masui; Yasuo Yoshioka; Yoshifumi Narumi; Toshitsugu Oka; Eiichi Tanaka
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2014-05-17       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 8.  Is there an optimal management for localized prostate cancer?

Authors:  Jaspreet Singh; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2010-08-09       Impact factor: 4.458

9.  Does intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) prevent additional toxicity of treating the pelvic lymph nodes compared to treatment of the prostate only?

Authors:  Matthias Guckenberger; Kurt Baier; Anne Richter; Dirk Vordermark; Michael Flentje
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 3.481

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.