PURPOSE: Men with Gleason score (GS) 8-10 prostate cancer (PCa) are assumed to have a high risk of micrometastatic disease at presentation. However, local failure is also a major problem. We sought to establish the importance of more aggressive local radiotherapy (RT) to ≥80 Gy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: There were 226 men treated consecutively with RT ± ADT from 1988 to 2002 for GS 8-10 PCa. Conventional, three-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated (IM) RT was used. Radiation dose was divided into three groups: (1) <75 Gy (n = 50); (2) 75-79.9 Gy (n = 60); or (3) ≥80 Gy (n = 116). The endpoints examined included biochemical failure (BF; nadir + 2 definition), distant metastasis (DM), cause-specific mortality, and overall mortality (OM). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 66, 71, and 58 months for Groups 1, 2, and 3. On Fine and Gray's competing risk regression analysis, significant predictors of reduced BF were RT dose ≥80 Gy (p = 0.011) and androgen deprivation therapy duration ≥24 months (p = 0.033). In a similar model of DM, only RT dose ≥80 Gy was significant (p = 0.007). On Cox regression analysis, significant predictors of reduced OM were RT dose ≥80 Gy (p = 0.035) and T category (T3/4 vs. T1, p = 0.041). Dose was not a significant determinant of cause-specific mortality. Results for RT dose were similar in a model with RT dose and ADT duration as continuous variables. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that RT dose escalation to ≥80 Gy is associated with lower risks of BF, DM, and OM in men with GS 8-10 PCa, independently of androgen deprivation therapy. Copyright Â
PURPOSE:Men with Gleason score (GS) 8-10 prostate cancer (PCa) are assumed to have a high risk of micrometastatic disease at presentation. However, local failure is also a major problem. We sought to establish the importance of more aggressive local radiotherapy (RT) to ≥80 Gy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: There were 226 men treated consecutively with RT ± ADT from 1988 to 2002 for GS 8-10 PCa. Conventional, three-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated (IM) RT was used. Radiation dose was divided into three groups: (1) <75 Gy (n = 50); (2) 75-79.9 Gy (n = 60); or (3) ≥80 Gy (n = 116). The endpoints examined included biochemical failure (BF; nadir + 2 definition), distant metastasis (DM), cause-specific mortality, and overall mortality (OM). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 66, 71, and 58 months for Groups 1, 2, and 3. On Fine and Gray's competing risk regression analysis, significant predictors of reduced BF were RT dose ≥80 Gy (p = 0.011) and androgen deprivation therapy duration ≥24 months (p = 0.033). In a similar model of DM, only RT dose ≥80 Gy was significant (p = 0.007). On Cox regression analysis, significant predictors of reduced OM were RT dose ≥80 Gy (p = 0.035) and T category (T3/4 vs. T1, p = 0.041). Dose was not a significant determinant of cause-specific mortality. Results for RT dose were similar in a model with RT dose and ADT duration as continuous variables. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that RT dose escalation to ≥80 Gy is associated with lower risks of BF, DM, and OM in men with GS 8-10 PCa, independently of androgen deprivation therapy. Copyright Â
Authors: J B Fiveash; G Hanks; M Roach; S Wang; E Vigneault; P W McLaughlin; H M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A F Monti; A Ostinelli; M Frigerio; D Cosentino; A Bossi; L F Cazzaniga; L Scandolaro; M C Valli Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gunar K Zagars; John A Antolak; Deborah A Kuban; Isaac I Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: M Roach; S Meehan; S Kroll; M Weil; J Ryu; E J Small; L W Margolis; J Presti; P C Carroll; T L Phillips Journal: J Urol Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michel Bolla; Laurence Collette; Léo Blank; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Johan Mattelaer; José Lopez Torecilla; J Rafael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Alfredo Zurlo; Marianne Pierart Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-07-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Derek B Chism; Alexandra L Hanlon; Patricia Troncoso; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Eric M Horwitz; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Matthew R Sydes; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Richard A Cowan; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John Hl Matthews; Jeremy Millar; A Rollo Moore; Rachel C Morgan; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Richard J Stephens; Isabel Syndikus; Mahesh K B Parmar Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Giampiero Giovacchini; Andrea Ciarmiello; Elisabetta Giovannini; Andrei Fodor; Cesare Cozzarini; Paola Mapelli; Elena Incerti; Nadia Di Muzio; Luigi Gianolli; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Rick Davis; Satya R Bose; Suresh Dutta; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Alexander Chi; Juan Godinez; Anand Desai; William Woods; Gabor Altdorfer; Mark D'Andrea; Ulf Karlsson; Richard A Vo; Thomas Sroka Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 6.244