Ken Yoshida1, Hideya Yamazaki2, Satoaki Nakamura3, Koji Masui3, Tadayuki Kotsuma4, Hironori Akiyama4, Eiichi Tanaka4, Yasuo Yoshioka5. 1. Department of Radiology, Osaka Medical College, Takatsuki-City, Osaka, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan hideya10@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, National Hospital Organization, Osaka National Hospital,Osaka City, Osaka, Japan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: To examine the role of the new grading system Prostate Cancer Risk Index (PRIX) with existing risk-grouping after high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR-ISBT) as monotherapy for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed outcome in 100 patients treated by HDR-ISBT as monotherapy using PRIX and compared this with D'Amico, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and Seattle classifications. The median follow-up was 74 (range=48-109) months. RESULTS: Five-year prostate-specific antigen control and overall survival rates were 94% and 98%, respectively. PRIX separated the risks statistically significantly (p=0.004), while D'Amico (p=0.319), NCCN 2002 (p=0.126), NCCN 2012 (p=0.052) and Seattle (p=0.112) classifications failed to show a statistically significant separation. CONCLUSION: PRIX is a more useful risk classification system in high-risk patient selection than existing risk classification system in clinically localized prostate cancer after HDR-ISBT as monotherapy. Copyright
AIM: To examine the role of the new grading system Prostate Cancer Risk Index (PRIX) with existing risk-grouping after high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy (HDR-ISBT) as monotherapy for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed outcome in 100 patients treated by HDR-ISBT as monotherapy using PRIX and compared this with D'Amico, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and Seattle classifications. The median follow-up was 74 (range=48-109) months. RESULTS: Five-year prostate-specific antigen control and overall survival rates were 94% and 98%, respectively. PRIX separated the risks statistically significantly (p=0.004), while D'Amico (p=0.319), NCCN 2002 (p=0.126), NCCN 2012 (p=0.052) and Seattle (p=0.112) classifications failed to show a statistically significant separation. CONCLUSION: PRIX is a more useful risk classification system in high-risk patient selection than existing risk classification system in clinically localized prostate cancer after HDR-ISBT as monotherapy. Copyright
Authors: Elspeth Raymond; Michael E O'Callaghan; Jared Campbell; Andrew D Vincent; Kerri Beckmann; David Roder; Sue Evans; John McNeil; Jeremy Millar; John Zalcberg; Martin Borg; Kim Moretti Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.481