OBJECTIVES: The new American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus definition of biochemical failure after radiotherapy for prostate cancer is defined as a prostate-specific antigen level at or greater than the absolute nadir PSA level plus 2 ng/mL. Because this definition inevitably will be used to compare cancer control rates after radiotherapy to those after surgery, this study examined the effect of this comparison. METHODS: We reviewed the data from 2570 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy from 1985 to 2004. Biochemical failure was defined as any measurable PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL or greater. We evaluated how the nadir+2 definition affected the failure rate when applied to this series. RESULTS: The actuarial 5, 10, and 15-year biochemical recurrence-free survival probability with failure defined as a PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL or more and a PSA level of 2 ng/mL or more was 88.6%, 81.2%, and 78.1% and 94.6%, 89.4%, and 84.3%, respectively (P <0.0001). The median time to biochemical progression was 2.8 years for the greater than 0.2 ng/mL definition and 7.9 years for the 2 ng/mL or more definition. The nadir+2 definition systematically overestimated the biochemical recurrence-free survival, even after stratifying patients into standard prognostic risk groups, especially in men who developed local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: When applied to a mature series of surgically treated patients with localized prostate cancer, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology "nadir+2" definition resulted in a systematic delay in the determination of biochemical failure. Because patients in this series who experienced a detectable PSA level took more than 5 years to progress to a PSA level of 2 ng/mL or greater, the 5-year biochemical control rates with the definition of 0.2 ng/mL or more should be compared with the 10-year biochemical control rates using the nadir+2 definition.
OBJECTIVES: The new American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus definition of biochemical failure after radiotherapy for prostate cancer is defined as a prostate-specific antigen level at or greater than the absolute nadir PSA level plus 2 ng/mL. Because this definition inevitably will be used to compare cancer control rates after radiotherapy to those after surgery, this study examined the effect of this comparison. METHODS: We reviewed the data from 2570 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy from 1985 to 2004. Biochemical failure was defined as any measurable PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL or greater. We evaluated how the nadir+2 definition affected the failure rate when applied to this series. RESULTS: The actuarial 5, 10, and 15-year biochemical recurrence-free survival probability with failure defined as a PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL or more and a PSA level of 2 ng/mL or more was 88.6%, 81.2%, and 78.1% and 94.6%, 89.4%, and 84.3%, respectively (P <0.0001). The median time to biochemical progression was 2.8 years for the greater than 0.2 ng/mL definition and 7.9 years for the 2 ng/mL or more definition. The nadir+2 definition systematically overestimated the biochemical recurrence-free survival, even after stratifying patients into standard prognostic risk groups, especially in men who developed local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: When applied to a mature series of surgically treated patients with localized prostate cancer, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology "nadir+2" definition resulted in a systematic delay in the determination of biochemical failure. Because patients in this series who experienced a detectable PSA level took more than 5 years to progress to a PSA level of 2 ng/mL or greater, the 5-year biochemical control rates with the definition of 0.2 ng/mL or more should be compared with the 10-year biochemical control rates using the nadir+2 definition.
Authors: David J Gallagher; Mia M Gaudet; Prodipto Pal; Tomas Kirchhoff; Lisa Balistreri; Kinjal Vora; Jasmine Bhatia; Zsofia Stadler; Samson W Fine; Victor Reuter; Michael Zelefsky; Michael J Morris; Howard I Scher; Robert J Klein; Larry Norton; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Mark E Robson; Kenneth Offit Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Naren R Ramakrishna; Steven B Duff; Kathleen E Hughes; Sara Sadownik; Joseph A Smith; Ashutosh K Tewari Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: David J Gallagher; Joseph Vijai; Angel M Cronin; Jasmine Bhatia; Andrew J Vickers; Mia M Gaudet; Samson Fine; Victor Reuter; Howard I Scher; Christer Halldén; Ana Dutra-Clarke; Robert J Klein; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Hans Lilja; Tomas Kirchhoff; Kenneth Offit Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Rosalia Viterbo; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Eric M Horwitz; Michael L Blute; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; James A Eastham; Angel M Cronin; Zvi Fuks; Zhigang Zhang; Yoshiya Yamada; Andrew Vickers; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt; Paul B Romesser; Xin Pei; Zhigang Zhang; William Polkinghorn; Sean McBride; Marisa Kollmeier; Yoshiya Yamada; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 20.096