OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate external beam reirradiation (re-EBRT) delivered to the prostate/prostatic bed for local recurrence, after radical or adjuvant/salvage radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: 32 patients received re-EBRT between February 2008 and October 2013. All patients had clinical/radiological local relapse in the prostate or prostatic bed and no distant metastasis. re-EBRT was delivered with selective RT technologies [stereotactic RT including CyberKnife(TM) (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA); image-guidance and intensity-modulated RT etc.]. Toxicity was evaluated using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria. Biochemical control was assessed according to the Phoenix definition (NADIR + 2 ng ml(-1)). RESULTS: Acute urinary toxicity: G0, 24 patients; G1, 6 patients; G2, 2 patients. Acute rectal toxicity: G0, 28 patients; G1, 2 patients; and G2, 1 patient. Late urinary toxicity (evaluated in 30 cases): G0, 23 patients; G1, 6 patients; G2, 1 patient. Late renal toxicity: G0, 25 patients; G1, 5 patients. A mean follow-up of 21.3 months after re-EBRT showed that 13 patients were free of cancer, 3 were alive with biochemical relapse and 12 patients were alive with clinically evident disease. Four patients had died: two of disease progression and two of other causes. CONCLUSION: re-EBRT using modern technology is a feasible approach for local prostate cancer recurrence offering 2-year tumour control in about half of the patients. Toxicity of re-EBRT is low. Future studies are needed to identify the patients who would benefit most from this treatment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our series, based on experience in one hospital alone, shows that re-EBRT for local relapse of prostate cancer is feasible and offers a 2-year cure in about half of the patients.
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate external beam reirradiation (re-EBRT) delivered to the prostate/prostatic bed for local recurrence, after radical or adjuvant/salvage radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: 32 patients received re-EBRT between February 2008 and October 2013. All patients had clinical/radiological local relapse in the prostate or prostatic bed and no distant metastasis. re-EBRT was delivered with selective RT technologies [stereotactic RT including CyberKnife(TM) (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA); image-guidance and intensity-modulated RT etc.]. Toxicity was evaluated using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria. Biochemical control was assessed according to the Phoenix definition (NADIR + 2 ng ml(-1)). RESULTS: Acute urinary toxicity: G0, 24 patients; G1, 6 patients; G2, 2 patients. Acute rectal toxicity: G0, 28 patients; G1, 2 patients; and G2, 1 patient. Late urinary toxicity (evaluated in 30 cases): G0, 23 patients; G1, 6 patients; G2, 1 patient. Late renal toxicity: G0, 25 patients; G1, 5 patients. A mean follow-up of 21.3 months after re-EBRT showed that 13 patients were free of cancer, 3 were alive with biochemical relapse and 12 patients were alive with clinically evident disease. Four patients had died: two of disease progression and two of other causes. CONCLUSION: re-EBRT using modern technology is a feasible approach for local prostate cancer recurrence offering 2-year tumour control in about half of the patients. Toxicity of re-EBRT is low. Future studies are needed to identify the patients who would benefit most from this treatment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our series, based on experience in one hospital alone, shows that re-EBRT for local relapse of prostate cancer is feasible and offers a 2-year cure in about half of the patients.
Authors: C Neppl-Huber; M Zappa; J W Coebergh; E Rapiti; J Rachtan; B Holleczek; S Rosso; T Aareleid; H Brenner; A Gondos Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: R Cambria; F Cattani; B A Jereczek-Fossa; F Pansini; D Ciardo; S Vigorito; S Russo; D Zerini; L Cozzi; R Orecchia Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Daher C Chade; Shahrokh F Shariat; Angel M Cronin; Caroline J Savage; R Jeffrey Karnes; Michael L Blute; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Henk G van der Poel; Hendrik Van Poppel; Steven Joniau; Guilherme Godoy; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Martin E Gleave; Marcos Dall'Oglio; Miguel Srougi; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Howard D Thames; Larry B Levy; Eric M Horwitz; Patrick A Kupelian; Alvaro A Martinez; Jeff M Michalski; Thomas M Pisansky; Howard M Sandler; William U Shipley; Michael J Zelefsky; Anthony L Zietman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Amar U Kishan; Sang J Park; Christopher R King; Kristofer Roberts; Patrick A Kupelian; Michael L Steinberg; Mitchell Kamrava Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Leszek Miszczyk; Małgorzata Stąpór-Fudzińska; Marcin Miszczyk; Bogusław Maciejewski; Andrzej Tukiendorf Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01