Christopher R King1, Daniel S Kapp. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. crking@standford.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the effective doses of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy in search for evidence of a dose-response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Original and available data from published studies of adjuvant and salvage RT after prostatectomy were analyzed in the context of biochemical tumor control probability (TCP) dose-response curves. Comparisons were made with dose-escalation studies of radical RT for localized disease. Arguments based on a microscopic vs. macroscopic disease dose-response relationships were used to interpret the clinical data. RESULTS: The tumor control rates after salvage RT were consistent with the TCP dose-response curve of radical RT, suggesting the presence of macroscopic-equivalent disease among salvage patients. For radical RT, the dose to achieve 50% biochemical tumor control was 65.9 Gy (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-66.8) and the Slope(50) was 2.6%/Gy (95% CI, 2.3-3.0). For salvage RT, the corresponding values were 66.8 Gy (95% CI, 65.1-68.4) and 3.8%/Gy (95% CI, 2.5-7.6). For a comparable TCP, the dose for adjuvant RT was approximately 6 Gy lower, consistent with one-tenth the burden of local disease. The present doses for adjuvant or salvage RT in the range of 60-70 Gy appear to be still on the steep part of the TCP dose-response curve. CONCLUSIONS: The effective doses and dose-response relation observed with RT after prostatectomy are consistent with the presence of macroscopic-equivalent disease for salvage patients and about a tenth of the residual disease for adjuvant patients. Greater doses would potentially achieve significantly greater disease-free control rates. A randomized trial with 250 patients comparing 64 vs. 70 Gy for salvage RT or 60 vs. 66 Gy for adjuvant RT would be capable of addressing this issue.
PURPOSE: To study the effective doses of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy in search for evidence of a dose-response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Original and available data from published studies of adjuvant and salvage RT after prostatectomy were analyzed in the context of biochemical tumor control probability (TCP) dose-response curves. Comparisons were made with dose-escalation studies of radical RT for localized disease. Arguments based on a microscopic vs. macroscopic disease dose-response relationships were used to interpret the clinical data. RESULTS: The tumor control rates after salvage RT were consistent with the TCP dose-response curve of radical RT, suggesting the presence of macroscopic-equivalent disease among salvage patients. For radical RT, the dose to achieve 50% biochemical tumor control was 65.9 Gy (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-66.8) and the Slope(50) was 2.6%/Gy (95% CI, 2.3-3.0). For salvage RT, the corresponding values were 66.8 Gy (95% CI, 65.1-68.4) and 3.8%/Gy (95% CI, 2.5-7.6). For a comparable TCP, the dose for adjuvant RT was approximately 6 Gy lower, consistent with one-tenth the burden of local disease. The present doses for adjuvant or salvage RT in the range of 60-70 Gy appear to be still on the steep part of the TCP dose-response curve. CONCLUSIONS: The effective doses and dose-response relation observed with RT after prostatectomy are consistent with the presence of macroscopic-equivalent disease for salvage patients and about a tenth of the residual disease for adjuvant patients. Greater doses would potentially achieve significantly greater disease-free control rates. A randomized trial with 250 patients comparing 64 vs. 70 Gy for salvage RT or 60 vs. 66 Gy for adjuvant RT would be capable of addressing this issue.
Authors: A Karl; A Buchner; C Tympner; T Kirchner; U Ganswindt; C Belka; R Ganzer; M Burger; F Eder; F Hofstädter; D Schilling; K Sievert; A Stenzl; M Scharpf; F Fend; F Vom Dorp; H Rübben; K Schmid; D Porres-Knoblauch; A Heidenreich; B Hangarter; R Knüchel-Clarke; M Rogenhofer; B Wullich; A Hartmann; E Comploj; A Pycha; E Hanspeter; D Pehrke; G Sauter; M Graefen; C Stief; A Haese Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Tim J Kruser; David F Jarrard; Andrew K Graf; Sean P Hedican; David R Paolone; John D Wegenke; Glenn Liu; Heather M Geye; Mark A Ritter Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: F Alongi; B De Bari; P Franco; P Ciammella; T Chekrine; L Livi; B A Jereczek-Fossa; A R Filippi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 3.469