Hilary Bagshaw1, Karen Ruth2, Eric M Horwitz1, David Y T Chen3, Mark K Buyyounouski4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States. Electronic address: mark.buyyounouski@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine family history (FH) as a prognostic factor following radiotherapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2007, 1711 men with clinically localized prostate cancer and complete family history who had received RT (median RT dose=74Gy) without androgen deprivation therapy were analyzed. FH was defined as any prostate cancer in a first degree relative. For the biochemical failure (BF) outcome, this sample size has 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.56 for positive versus negative FH. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 71 months, there was no significant difference in the distribution of Gleason score (GS) or prostate specific antigen (PSA) based on FH. A positive FH was not an independent predictor of BF, distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM), or overall mortality (OM) in Cox proportional multivariable analysis. On further analysis in a Cox proportional multivariable analysis, men with two or more first degree relatives with prostate cancer had a significantly higher likelihood of BF and DM than those with no FH, although there was no difference in PCSM or OM. Men with a positive FH (23%) were more likely to be younger, have a lower PSA, and non-palpable disease. There was no interaction between a positive FH and neither race nor treatment era (pre-PSA vs. PSA era). CONCLUSIONS: A positive FH is not a prognostic factor following RT and should not alter standard treatment recommendations. Patients with two or more first degree relatives with prostate cancer had a higher likelihood of BF and DM, but there was no effect on survival. There was no interaction between a positive FH and African American race or treatment era. A positive FH was however, associated with more favorable PSA values and T-stage that may be the result of earlier screening.
OBJECTIVE: To examine family history (FH) as a prognostic factor following radiotherapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2007, 1711 men with clinically localized prostate cancer and complete family history who had received RT (median RT dose=74Gy) without androgen deprivation therapy were analyzed. FH was defined as any prostate cancer in a first degree relative. For the biochemical failure (BF) outcome, this sample size has 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.56 for positive versus negative FH. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 71 months, there was no significant difference in the distribution of Gleason score (GS) or prostate specific antigen (PSA) based on FH. A positive FH was not an independent predictor of BF, distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM), or overall mortality (OM) in Cox proportional multivariable analysis. On further analysis in a Cox proportional multivariable analysis, men with two or more first degree relatives with prostate cancer had a significantly higher likelihood of BF and DM than those with no FH, although there was no difference in PCSM or OM. Men with a positive FH (23%) were more likely to be younger, have a lower PSA, and non-palpable disease. There was no interaction between a positive FH and neither race nor treatment era (pre-PSA vs. PSA era). CONCLUSIONS: A positive FH is not a prognostic factor following RT and should not alter standard treatment recommendations. Patients with two or more first degree relatives with prostate cancer had a higher likelihood of BF and DM, but there was no effect on survival. There was no interaction between a positive FH and African American race or treatment era. A positive FH was however, associated with more favorable PSA values and T-stage that may be the result of earlier screening.
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Alan Pollack; Alexandra L Hanlon; Eric M Horwitz; Steven J Feigenberg; Andre A Konski; Benjamin Movsas; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo; C-M Charlie Ma; Shawn W McNeeley; Mark K Buyyounouski; Robert A Price Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Chandana A Reddy; Alwyn M Reuther; Arul Mahadevan; Jay P Ciezki; Eric A Klein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher A Peters; Richard G Stock; Seth R Blacksburg; Nelson N Stone Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mark Thalgott; Martina Kron; Johannes M Brath; Donna P Ankerst; Ian M Thompson; Juergen E Gschwend; Kathleen Herkommer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 4.226