Kris T Huang1, Radka Stoyanova1, Gail Walker2, Kiri Sandler3, Matthew T Studenski1, Nesrin Dogan1, Tahseen Al-Saleem4, Mark K Buyyounouski5, Eric M Horwitz6, Alan Pollack7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, USA. 2. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Core Resource, Sylvester Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, USA. 3. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: APollack@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Prostate biopsy positivity after radiotherapy (RT) is a significant determinant of eventual biochemical failure. We mapped pre- and post-treatment tumor locations to determine if residual disease is location-dependent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 303 patients treated on a randomized hypofractionation trial. Of these, 125 underwent prostate biopsy 2-years post-RT. Biopsy cores were mapped to a sextant template, and 86 patients with both pre-/post-treatment systematic sextant biopsies were analyzed. RESULTS: The pretreatment distribution of positive biopsy cores was not significantly related to prostate region (base, mid, apex; p=0.723). Whereas all regions post-RT had reduced positive biopsies, the base was reduced to the greatest degree and the apex the least (p=0.045). In 38 patients who had a positive post-treatment biopsy, there was change in the rate of apical positivity before and after treatment (76 vs. 71%; p=0.774), while significant reductions were seen in the mid and base. CONCLUSION: In our experience, persistence of prostate tumor cells after RT increases going from the base to apex. MRI was used in planning and image guidance was performed daily during treatment, so geographic miss of the apex is unlikely. Nonetheless, the pattern observed suggests that attention to apex dosimetry is a priority.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy positivity after radiotherapy (RT) is a significant determinant of eventual biochemical failure. We mapped pre- and post-treatment tumor locations to determine if residual disease is location-dependent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 303 patients treated on a randomized hypofractionation trial. Of these, 125 underwent prostate biopsy 2-years post-RT. Biopsy cores were mapped to a sextant template, and 86 patients with both pre-/post-treatment systematic sextant biopsies were analyzed. RESULTS: The pretreatment distribution of positive biopsy cores was not significantly related to prostate region (base, mid, apex; p=0.723). Whereas all regions post-RT had reduced positive biopsies, the base was reduced to the greatest degree and the apex the least (p=0.045). In 38 patients who had a positive post-treatment biopsy, there was change in the rate of apical positivity before and after treatment (76 vs. 71%; p=0.774), while significant reductions were seen in the mid and base. CONCLUSION: In our experience, persistence of prostate tumor cells after RT increases going from the base to apex. MRI was used in planning and image guidance was performed daily during treatment, so geographic miss of the apex is unlikely. Nonetheless, the pattern observed suggests that attention to apex dosimetry is a priority.
Authors: Jinka R Sathya; Ian R Davis; Jim A Julian; Qing Guo; Dean Daya; Ian S Dayes; Himu R Lukka; Mark Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Milosevic; S Voruganti; R Blend; H Alasti; P Warde; M McLean; P Catton; C Catton; M Gospodarowicz Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 6.280
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: J Lattanzi; S McNeeley; W Pinover; E Horwitz; I Das; T E Schultheiss; G E Hanks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: 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: Alan Pollack; Gail Walker; Eric M Horwitz; Robert Price; Steven Feigenberg; Andre A Konski; Radka Stoyanova; Benjamin Movsas; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Charlie Ma; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marisol De Brabandere; Peter Hoskin; Karin Haustermans; Frank Van den Heuvel; Frank-André Siebert Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Steven J Feigenberg; Kamen Paskalev; Shawn McNeeley; Eric M Horwitz; Andre Konski; Lu Wang; Charlie Ma; Alan Pollack Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Alan Pollack; Felix M Chinea; Elizabeth Bossart; Deukwoo Kwon; Matthew C Abramowitz; Charles Lynne; Merce Jorda; Brian Marples; Vivek N Patel; Xiaodong Wu; Isildinha Reis; Matthew T Studenski; Javier Casillas; Radka Stoyanova Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 7.038