Literature DB >> 15711272

Definitions of biochemical failure that best predict clinical failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation alone: a multi-institutional pooled analysis.

Eric M Horwitz1, Howard D Thames, Deborah A Kuban, Larry B Levy, Patrick A Kupelian, Alvaro A Martinez, Jeffrey M Michalski, Thomas M Pisansky, Howard M Sandler, William U Shipley, Michael J Zelefsky, Gerald E Hanks, Anthony L Zietman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pooled data on 4,839 patients with T1-2 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (RT) alone at 9 institutions have previously provided long-term biochemical failure (BF) and clinical outcomes using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition. In this report we determined the sensitivity and specificity of several BF definitions using distant failure (DF) alone or clinical failure (CF), defined as local failure (LF) and/or DF.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pooled cohort was treated between 1986 and 1995 with external beam RT (60 Gy or greater) without pre-RT androgen suppression or planned post-RT adjuvant androgen suppression. Median followup was 6.3 years. The sensitivity and specificity of 102 definitions of BF relative to DF and LF were assessed.
RESULTS: The BF definitions with higher sensitivity and specificity than the ASTRO definition for DF only and CF are reported. The sensitivity and specificity of the ASTRO definition to predict DF alone was 55% and 68%, respectively. Three definitions had higher sensitivity and specificity, namely prostate specific antigen (PSA) greater than current nadir (lowest PSA prior to current measurement) plus 3 ng/ml (sensitivity 76% and specificity 72%), dated at the call (failure date as the date when the criterion was met), PSA greater than absolute nadir plus 2 ng/ml (sensitivity 72% and specificity 70%), dated at the call, or 2 consecutive increases of at least 0.5 ng/ml, back dated (sensitivity 69% and specificity 73%). The sensitivity and specificity of the ASTRO definition to predict CF was 60% and 72%, respectively. Three definitions had higher sensitivity and specificity, namely PSA greater than current nadir plus 3 ng/ml (sensitivity 66% and specificity 77%), dated at the call, PSA greater than absolute nadir plus 2 ng/ml (sensitivity 64% and specificity 74%), dated at the call, or 2 consecutive increases of at least 0.5 ng/ml, back dated (sensitivity 67% and specificity 78%).
CONCLUSIONS: Using what is to our knowledge the largest data set of patients with prostate cancer treated with RT alone we correlated multiple definitions of BF with the strict clinical end points of DF alone and CF (DF or local failure). Defining BF as PSA greater than absolute nadir plus 2 ng/ml, dated at the call, PSA greater than current nadir plus 3 ng/ml, dated at the call, or 2 consecutive increases of at least 0.5 ng/ml, back dated, had higher sensitivity and specificity for DF alone or CF compared with the ASTRO definition. This information should contribute to the discussion regarding suggested modifications to the ASTRO definition of biochemical failure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15711272     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000152556.53602.64

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  30 in total

Review 1.  [PSA recurrence following radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy].

Authors:  J Fichtner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Biochemical control of prostate cancer with iodine-125 brachytherapy alone: experience from a single institution.

Authors:  Larissa Pereira da Ponte Amadei; João Luis Fernandes Silva; Samir Abdallah Hanna; Cecília Maria Kalil Haddad; Adriano João Nesrallah; Heloisa Andrade Carvalho
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  [Tumour recurrence].

Authors:  O W Hakenberg; F Sedlmayer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Radiation dose and late failures in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter B Morgan; Alexandra L Hanlon; Eric M Horwitz; Mark K Buyyounouski; Robert G Uzzo; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-12-29       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  (11)C-acetate PET in the early evaluation of prostate cancer recurrence.

Authors:  Susanne Albrecht; Franz Buchegger; Dmitri Soloviev; Habib Zaidi; Hansjoerg Vees; Haleem G Khan; Alain Keller; Angelika Bischof Delaloye; Osman Ratib; Raymond Miralbell
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07-11       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Management of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after local therapy: evolving standards of care and new directions.

Authors:  Channing J Paller; Emmanuel S Antonarakis
Journal:  Clin Adv Hematol Oncol       Date:  2013-01

7.  Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis.

Authors:  Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Susan T Stewart; Vibha Bhatnagar; Christopher J Sweeney; James E Stahl; Pamela M McMahon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Observation versus initial treatment for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Pablo A Lee; Pamela M McMahon
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Challenges in clinical prostate cancer: role of imaging.

Authors:  Gary J Kelloff; Peter Choyke; Donald S Coffey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  The impact of definitions of failure on the interpretation of biochemical recurrence following treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew E Nielsen; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2007
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.