PURPOSE: Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is applied routinely in patients with a biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). Although the detection threshold for relapse after RP has steadily been lowered, only about 30% of the SRT patients achieve a durable response. We have previously shown the association between a PSA decrease below detectable levels after SRT and biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS). After recalculating our data according to a more recent definition of biochemical failure after SRT, we now show the significance of the post-RP PSA nadir. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 159 prostate cancer patients without hormonal treatment after RP, SRT was given to 72 patients with persistently detectable PSA after RP and to 87 whose PSA increased out of an undetectable range. The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.29 ng/ml for the former group and 0.34 ng/ml for the latter group. A radiation dose of 66.6 Gy was applied to the prostate bed. RESULTS: The overall median follow-up time was 41.7 months. The probability for BPFS after this period was 52.8% in 72 patients with persistently detectable PSA after RP and 65.4% in 87 patients who had a post-RP PSA nadir below detection limit. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed no significant difference in BPFS of both patient groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SRT is a viable treatment option for patients with persistently detectable PSA, giving similar results as in patients whose PSA increases out of an undetectable range after RP.
PURPOSE: Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is applied routinely in patients with a biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). Although the detection threshold for relapse after RP has steadily been lowered, only about 30% of the SRT patients achieve a durable response. We have previously shown the association between a PSA decrease below detectable levels after SRT and biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS). After recalculating our data according to a more recent definition of biochemical failure after SRT, we now show the significance of the post-RP PSA nadir. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 159 prostate cancerpatients without hormonal treatment after RP, SRT was given to 72 patients with persistently detectable PSA after RP and to 87 whose PSA increased out of an undetectable range. The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.29 ng/ml for the former group and 0.34 ng/ml for the latter group. A radiation dose of 66.6 Gy was applied to the prostate bed. RESULTS: The overall median follow-up time was 41.7 months. The probability for BPFS after this period was 52.8% in 72 patients with persistently detectable PSA after RP and 65.4% in 87 patients who had a post-RP PSA nadir below detection limit. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed no significant difference in BPFS of both patient groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SRT is a viable treatment option for patients with persistently detectable PSA, giving similar results as in patients whose PSA increases out of an undetectable range after RP.
Authors: Frederik Wenz; Thomas Martin; Dirk Böhmer; Stefan Martens; Felix Sedlmayer; Manfred Wirth; Kurt Miller; Axel Heidenreich; Mark Schrader; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: M M Morris; K C Dallow; A L Zietman; J Park; A Althausen; N M Heney; W U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter Swindle; James A Eastham; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas Wheeler; Norio Maru; Kevin Slawin; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ohseong Kwon; Ki Bom Kim; Young Ik Lee; Seok-Soo Byun; Jae-Sung Kim; Sang Eun Lee; Sung Kyu Hong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240