PURPOSE: Several recent SEER- (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-) analyses gave rise to a highly controversial discussion in how far radiotherapy for prostate cancer is associated with an increased risk of secondary neoplasms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In order to enable a rational discussion, the available literature was reviewed covering all publications from the mid 80s to January 2007. RESULTS: The reported numbers of secondary cancer (bladder, rectum, lung cancer and sarcoma) after irradiation were found to be increased in some publications. However, after age adjustment and correction for follow-up duration no clear increase was detectable. DISCUSSION: Up to now, all available data are highly heterogeneous. Thus, a low risk for secondary cancer cannot be ruled out completely. Nevertheless, it seems very unlikely that there is a relevant risk for secondary cancer since the largest of the published series did not document an increased risk for any secondary cancer. CONCLUSION: Only very large prospective studies which are designed to minimize the influence of possible confounders will be able to address the real risk of prostate irradiation-related cancer induction. The available data are clearly not valid and helpful for guiding any treatment decision.
PURPOSE: Several recent SEER- (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-) analyses gave rise to a highly controversial discussion in how far radiotherapy for prostate cancer is associated with an increased risk of secondary neoplasms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In order to enable a rational discussion, the available literature was reviewed covering all publications from the mid 80s to January 2007. RESULTS: The reported numbers of secondary cancer (bladder, rectum, lung cancer and sarcoma) after irradiation were found to be increased in some publications. However, after age adjustment and correction for follow-up duration no clear increase was detectable. DISCUSSION: Up to now, all available data are highly heterogeneous. Thus, a low risk for secondary cancer cannot be ruled out completely. Nevertheless, it seems very unlikely that there is a relevant risk for secondary cancer since the largest of the published series did not document an increased risk for any secondary cancer. CONCLUSION: Only very large prospective studies which are designed to minimize the influence of possible confounders will be able to address the real risk of prostate irradiation-related cancer induction. The available data are clearly not valid and helpful for guiding any treatment decision.
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
Authors: Hans Theodor Eich; Anna Stepien; Christian Zimmermann; Martin Hellmich; Ralf Metzger; Arnulf Hölscher; Rolf-Peter Müller Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Martin Pursch-Lee; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Marc D Piroth; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Karin Fischedick; Jaroslav Siluschek; Mareike Kehl; Barbara Krenkel; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-02-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Waseem Khaliq; Christian F Meyer; Ikechukwu Uzoaru; Richard M Wolf; Emmanuel S Antonarakis Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 5.588