Literature DB >> 16169682

Defining biochemical failure after radiotherapy with and without androgen deprivation for prostate cancer.

Mark K Buyyounouski1, Alexandra L Hanlon, Debra F Eisenberg, Eric M Horwitz, Steven J Feigenberg, Robert G Uzzo, Alan Pollack.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare several characteristics of alternative definitions of biochemical failure (BF) in men with extended follow-up after radiotherapy (RT) with or with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From December 1, 1991, to April 30, 1998, 688 men with Stage T1c-T3NX-N0M0 prostate cancer received RT alone (n = 586) or RT plus ADT (n = 102) with a minimal follow-up of 4 years and five or more "ADT-free" posttreatment prostate-specific antigen levels. BF was defined by three methods: (1) the ASTRO definition (three consecutive rises in prostate-specific antigen level); (2) a modified American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology (ASTRO) definition requiring two additional consecutive rises when a decline immediately subsequent to three consecutive rises occurred; and (3) the "Houston" or nadir plus 2-ng/mL definition (a rise of at least 2 ng/mL greater than the nadir). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy were determined for each using clinical progression as the endpoint. Furthermore, the misclassification rates for a steadily rising prostate-specific antigen level, ability to satisfy the proportional hazards (RT with or without ADT), effects of short follow-up, and intervals to the diagnosis of BF were compared.
RESULTS: The misclassification rate for BF using the nadir plus 2-ng/mL definition was 2% for RT alone and 0% for RT plus ADT compared with 0% and 0% for the modified ASTRO definition, and 5% and 23% for the ASTRO definition, respectively. The hazard rates for RT alone and RT plus ADT were proportional only for the nadir plus 2 ng/mL definition and seemingly unaffected by the length of follow-up. For RT with or without ADT, the nadir plus 2 ng/mL definition was the most specific (RT, 80% vs. RT plus ADT, 75%) with the greatest positive predictive value (RT, 36% vs. RT plus ADT, 25%) and overall accuracy (RT, 81% vs. RT plus ADT, 77%). A greater proportion of BF was diagnosed in the first 2 years of follow-up with the nadir plus 2 ng/mL definition compared with the ASTRO definition (13% vs. 5%, p = 0.0138, chi-square test).
CONCLUSION: The nadir plus 2 ng/mL definition was the best predictor of sustained, true, biochemical, and clinical failure, and was not affected by the use of ADT or follow-up length.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16169682     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.05.053

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


  13 in total

1.  Young age under 60 years is not a contraindication to treatment with definitive dose escalated radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tracy L Klayton; Karen Ruth; Eric M Horwitz; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; David Y T Chen; Mark Sobczak; Mark K Buyyounouski
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 6.280

2.  [Tumour recurrence].

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

3.  Radiotherapy doses of 80 Gy and higher are associated with lower mortality in men with Gleason score 8 to 10 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Niraj Pahlajani; Karen J Ruth; Mark K Buyyounouski; David Y T Chen; Eric M Horwitz; Gerald E Hanks; Robert A Price; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy to biochemical recurrence after external beam radiotherapy: a phase 3 GICOR study.

Authors:  F Casas; I Henríquez; A Bejar; X Maldonado; A Alvarez; C González-Sansegundo; A Boladeras; F Ferrer; A Hervás; I Herruzo; M Caro; I Rodriguez; C Ferrer
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  PSA Doubling Time Predicts for the Development of Distant Metastases for Patients Who Fail 3DCRT Or IMRT Using the Phoenix Definition.

Authors:  Tracy L Klayton; Karen Ruth; Mark K Buyyounouski; Robert G Uzzo; Yu-Ning Wong; David Y T Chen; Mark Sobczak; Ruth Peter; Eric M Horwitz
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011

Review 6.  Systematic review of hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Nitin Ohri; Timothy N Showalter; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 12.111

7.  A comparison of acute and chronic toxicity for men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy or (125)I permanent implant.

Authors:  Thomas N Eade; Eric M Horwitz; Karen Ruth; Mark K Buyyounouski; David J D'Ambrosio; Steven J Feigenberg; David Y T Chen; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 8.  Patterns of outcome and toxicity after salvage prostatectomy, salvage cryosurgery and salvage brachytherapy for prostate cancer recurrences after radiation therapy: a multi-center experience and literature review.

Authors:  Max Peters; Maaike R Moman; Henk G van der Poel; Henk Vergunst; Igle Jan de Jong; Peter L M Vijverberg; Jan J Battermann; Simon Horenblas; Marco van Vulpen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  How can men destined for biochemical failure after androgen deprivation and radiotherapy be identified earlier?

Authors:  David J D'Ambrosio; Karen Ruth; Eric M Horwitz; Robert G Uzzo; Alan Pollack; Mark K Buyyounouski
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  What dose of external-beam radiation is high enough for prostate cancer?

Authors:  Thomas N Eade; Alexandra L Hanlon; Eric M Horwitz; Mark K Buyyounouski; Gerald E Hanks; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-03-29       Impact factor: 7.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.