PURPOSE: An increasing serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is the initial sign of recurrent prostate cancer among patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) may eradicate locally recurrent cancer, but studies to distinguish local from systemic recurrence lack adequate sensitivity and specificity. We developed a nomogram to predict the probability of cancer control at 6 years after SRT for PSA-defined recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we constructed a model to predict the probability of disease progression after SRT in a multi-institutional cohort of 1,540 patients. RESULTS: The 6-year progression-free probability was 32% (95% CI, 28% to 35%) overall. Forty-eight percent (95% CI, 40% to 56%) of patients treated with SRT alone at PSA levels of 0.50 ng/mL or lower were disease free at 6 years, including 41% (95% CI, 31% to 51%) who also had a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less or poorly differentiated (Gleason grade 8 to 10) cancer. Significant variables in the model were PSA level before SRT (P < .001), prostatectomy Gleason grade (P < .001), PSA doubling time (P < .001), surgical margins (P < .001), androgen-deprivation therapy before or during SRT (P < .001), and lymph node metastasis (P = .019). The resultant nomogram was internally validated and had a concordance index of 0.69. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy have a long-term PSA response to SRT when treatment is administered at the earliest sign of recurrence. The nomogram we developed predicts the outcome of SRT and should prove valuable for medical decision making for patients with a rising PSA level.
PURPOSE: An increasing serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is the initial sign of recurrent prostate cancer among patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) may eradicate locally recurrent cancer, but studies to distinguish local from systemic recurrence lack adequate sensitivity and specificity. We developed a nomogram to predict the probability of cancer control at 6 years after SRT for PSA-defined recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we constructed a model to predict the probability of disease progression after SRT in a multi-institutional cohort of 1,540 patients. RESULTS: The 6-year progression-free probability was 32% (95% CI, 28% to 35%) overall. Forty-eight percent (95% CI, 40% to 56%) of patients treated with SRT alone at PSA levels of 0.50 ng/mL or lower were disease free at 6 years, including 41% (95% CI, 31% to 51%) who also had a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less or poorly differentiated (Gleason grade 8 to 10) cancer. Significant variables in the model were PSA level before SRT (P < .001), prostatectomy Gleason grade (P < .001), PSA doubling time (P < .001), surgical margins (P < .001), androgen-deprivation therapy before or during SRT (P < .001), and lymph node metastasis (P = .019). The resultant nomogram was internally validated and had a concordance index of 0.69. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy have a long-term PSA response to SRT when treatment is administered at the earliest sign of recurrence. The nomogram we developed predicts the outcome of SRT and should prove valuable for medical decision making for patients with a rising PSA level.
Authors: Rex Cheung; Ashish M Kamat; Renaud de Crevoisier; Pamela K Allen; Andrew K Lee; Susan L Tucker; Louis Pisters; Richard J Babaian; Deborah Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michel Bolla; Hein van Poppel; Laurence Collette; Paul van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi Da Pozzo; Theo M de Reijke; Antony Verbaeys; Jean-François Bosset; Roland van Velthoven; Jean-Marie Maréchal; Pierre Scalliet; Karin Haustermans; Marianne Piérart Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 13-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ping Zhou; Ming-Hui Chen; David McLeod; Peter R Carroll; Judd W Moul; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Michelle L DeSilvio; Jerry D Slater; Carl J Rossi; Daniel W Miller; Judith A Adams; William U Shipley Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-09-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Zohar A Dotan; Fernando J Bianco; Hans Lilja; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Paul A Fearn; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lori E Lowes; Michael Lock; George Rodrigues; David D'Souza; Glenn Bauman; Belal Ahmad; Varagur Venkatesan; Alison L Allan; Tracy Sexton Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Tineke Wolters; Caroline J Savage; Angel M Cronin; M Frank O'Brien; Monique J Roobol; Gunnar Aus; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Fritz H Schröder; Hans Lilja Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Julian Müller; Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Sarah Kedzia; Daniel Eberli; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie G C Kroeze; Tullio Sulser; Daniel M Schmid; Aurelius Omlin; Alexander Müller; Thomas Zilli; Hubert John; Helmut Kranzbuehler; Philipp A Kaufmann; Gustav K von Schulthess; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236