Graham D Smith1, Tom Pickles2, Juanita Crook3, Andre-Guy Martin4, Eric Vigneault4, Fabio L Cury5, Jim Morris2, Charles Catton6, Himu Lukka7, Andrew Warner8, Ying Yang9, George Rodrigues10. 1. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kelowna General Hospital, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, L'Hotel Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 6. Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada. 9. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 10. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: George.Rodrigues@lhsc.on.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare, in a retrospective study, biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) and overall survival (OS) in low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who received brachytherapy (BT) (either low-dose-rate brachytherapy [LDR-BT] or high-dose-rate brachytherapy with external beam radiation therapy [HDR-BT+EBRT]) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient data were obtained from the ProCaRS database, which contains 7974 prostate cancer patients treated with primary radiation therapy at four Canadian cancer institutions from 1994 to 2010. Propensity score matching was used to obtain the following 3 matched cohorts with balanced baseline prognostic factors: (1) low-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; (2) intermediate-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; and (3) intermediate-risk HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare differences in bFFS (primary endpoint) and OS in the 3 matched groups. RESULTS: Propensity score matching created acceptable balance in the baseline prognostic factors in all matches. Final matches included 2 1:1 matches in the intermediate-risk cohorts, LDR-BT versus EBRT (total n=254) and HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT (total n=388), and one 4:1 match in the low-risk cohort (LDR-BT:EBRT, total n=400). Median follow-up ranged from 2.7 to 7.3 years for the 3 matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that all BT treatment options were associated with statistically significant improvements in bFFS when compared with EBRT in all cohorts (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT hazard ratio [HR] 4.58, P=.001; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 2.08, P=.007; low-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 2.90, P=.004). No significant difference in OS was found in all comparisons (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 1.27, P=.687; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 1.55, P=.470; low-risk LDR-BT vs EBRT HR 1.41, P=.500). CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score matched analysis showed that BT options led to statistically significant improvements in bFFS in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patient populations.
PURPOSE: To compare, in a retrospective study, biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) and overall survival (OS) in low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancerpatients who received brachytherapy (BT) (either low-dose-rate brachytherapy [LDR-BT] or high-dose-rate brachytherapy with external beam radiation therapy [HDR-BT+EBRT]) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient data were obtained from the ProCaRS database, which contains 7974 prostate cancerpatients treated with primary radiation therapy at four Canadian cancer institutions from 1994 to 2010. Propensity score matching was used to obtain the following 3 matched cohorts with balanced baseline prognostic factors: (1) low-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; (2) intermediate-risk LDR-BT versus EBRT; and (3) intermediate-risk HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to compare differences in bFFS (primary endpoint) and OS in the 3 matched groups. RESULTS: Propensity score matching created acceptable balance in the baseline prognostic factors in all matches. Final matches included 2 1:1 matches in the intermediate-risk cohorts, LDR-BT versus EBRT (total n=254) and HDR-BT+EBRT versus EBRT (total n=388), and one 4:1 match in the low-risk cohort (LDR-BT:EBRT, total n=400). Median follow-up ranged from 2.7 to 7.3 years for the 3 matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that all BT treatment options were associated with statistically significant improvements in bFFS when compared with EBRT in all cohorts (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT hazard ratio [HR] 4.58, P=.001; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 2.08, P=.007; low-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 2.90, P=.004). No significant difference in OS was found in all comparisons (intermediate-risk EBRT vs LDR-BT HR 1.27, P=.687; intermediate-risk EBRT vs HDR-BT+EBRT HR 1.55, P=.470; low-risk LDR-BT vs EBRT HR 1.41, P=.500). CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score matched analysis showed that BT options led to statistically significant improvements in bFFS in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancerpatient populations.
Authors: David Tiberi; George Rodrigues; Tom Pickles; Jim Morris; Juanita Crook; Andre-Guy Martin; Fabio Cury; Charles Catton; Himu Lukka; Andrew Warner; Daniel Taussky Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: O Pons-Llanas; E Collado-Ballesteros; S Roldan-Ortega; A Conde-Moreno; F Celada-Alvarez; F Martínez-Arcelus; M J Pérez-Calatayud; V Carmona-Meseguer; J Gimeno-Olmos; V Forner-Ferrer; A Tormo-Micó; J Perez-Calatayud; J López-Torrecilla Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-05-08
Authors: Andrew Warner; Tom Pickles; Juanita Crook; Andre-Guy Martin; Luis Souhami; Charles Catton; Himu Lukka; George Rodrigues Journal: Cureus Date: 2015-06-11
Authors: Ravishankar Jayadevappa; Sumedha Chhatre; Yu-Ning Wong; Marsha N Wittink; Ratna Cook; Knashawn H Morales; Neha Vapiwala; Diane K Newman; Thomas Guzzo; Alan J Wein; Stanley B Malkowicz; David I Lee; Jerome S Schwartz; Joseph J Gallo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Finbar Slevin; Sree Lakshmi Rodda; Peter Bownes; Louise Murray; David Bottomley; Clare Wilkinson; Ese Adiotomre; Bashar Al-Qaisieh; Emma Dugdale; Oliver Hulson; Joshua Mason; Jonathan Smith; Ann M Henry Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: Kevin Martell; Soumyajit Roy; Tyler Meyer; Jordan Stosky; Will Jiang; Kundan Thind; Michael Roumeliotis; John Bosch; Steve Angyalfi; Harvey Quon; Siraj Husain Journal: Heliyon Date: 2020-06-07
Authors: Hannah M Dahn; Patricia A K Oliver; Stefan Allen; Amanda Cherpak; Alasdair Syme; Nikhilesh Patil; David Bowes Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-05-21