Lars Budäus1, Jonas Schiffmann2, Markus Graefen1, Hartwig Huland1, Pierre Tennstedt1, Alessandra Siegmann3, Dirk Böhmer3, Volker Budach3, Detlef Bartkowiak4, Thomas Wiegel4. 1. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. j.schiffmann@klinikum-braunschweig.de. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after radical prostatectomy (RP) for defining biochemical recurrence and initiating salvage radiation therapy (SRT) is still debatable. Whereas adjuvant or extremely early SRT irrespective of PSA progression might be overtreatment for some patients, SRT at PSA >0.2 ng/ml might be undertreatment for others. The current study addresses the optimal timing of radiation therapy after RP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cohort 1 comprised 293 men with PSA 0.1-0.19 ng/ml after RP. Cohort 2 comprised 198 men with SRT. PSA progression and metastases were assessed in cohort 1. In cohort 2, we compared freedom from progression according to pre-SRT PSA (0.03-0.19 vs. 0.2-0.499 ng/ml). Multivariable Cox regression analyses predicted progression after SRT. RESULTS: In cohort 1, 281 (95.9%) men had further PSA progression ≥0.2 ng/ml and 27 (9.2%) men developed metastases within a median follow-up of 74.3 months. In cohort 2, we recorded improved freedom from progression according to lower pre-SRT PSA (0.03-0.19 vs. 0.2-0.499 ng/ml: 69 vs. 53%; log-rank p = 0.051). Patients with higher pre-SRT PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml were at a higher risk of progression after SRT (hazard ratio: 1.8; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml after RP will progress to PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml. Additionally, early administration of SRT at post-RP PSA level <0.2 ng/ml might improve freedom from progression. Consequently, we suggest a PSA threshold of 0.1 ng/ml to define biochemical recurrence after RP.
BACKGROUND: The optimal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after radical prostatectomy (RP) for defining biochemical recurrence and initiating salvage radiation therapy (SRT) is still debatable. Whereas adjuvant or extremely early SRT irrespective of PSA progression might be overtreatment for some patients, SRT at PSA >0.2 ng/ml might be undertreatment for others. The current study addresses the optimal timing of radiation therapy after RP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cohort 1 comprised 293 men with PSA 0.1-0.19 ng/ml after RP. Cohort 2 comprised 198 men with SRT. PSA progression and metastases were assessed in cohort 1. In cohort 2, we compared freedom from progression according to pre-SRT PSA (0.03-0.19 vs. 0.2-0.499 ng/ml). Multivariable Cox regression analyses predicted progression after SRT. RESULTS: In cohort 1, 281 (95.9%) men had further PSA progression ≥0.2 ng/ml and 27 (9.2%) men developed metastases within a median follow-up of 74.3 months. In cohort 2, we recorded improved freedom from progression according to lower pre-SRT PSA (0.03-0.19 vs. 0.2-0.499 ng/ml: 69 vs. 53%; log-rank p = 0.051). Patients with higher pre-SRT PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml were at a higher risk of progression after SRT (hazard ratio: 1.8; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml after RP will progress to PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml. Additionally, early administration of SRT at post-RP PSA level <0.2 ng/ml might improve freedom from progression. Consequently, we suggest a PSA threshold of 0.1 ng/ml to define biochemical recurrence after RP.
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: Alberto Briganti; Thomas Wiegel; Steven Joniau; Cesare Cozzarini; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Bertrand Tombal; Karin Haustermans; Tom Budiharto; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Nadia Di Muzio; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Francesco Montorsi; Hein Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Shane E Cotter; Ming Hui Chen; Judd W Moul; W Robert Lee; Bridget F Koontz; Mitchell S Anscher; Cary N Robertson; Philip J Walther; Thomas J Polascik; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William C Jackson; Skyler B Johnson; Benjamin Foster; Corey Foster; Darren Li; Yeohan Song; Jeffrey Vainshtein; Jessica Zhou; Daniel A Hamstra; Felix Y Feng Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-07-18
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Pfister; Michel Bolla; Alberto Briganti; Peter Carroll; Cesare Cozzarini; Steven Joniau; Hein van Poppel; Mack Roach; Andrew Stephenson; Thomas Wiegel; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: F Casas; I Valduvieco; G Oses; L Izquierdo; I Archila; M Costa; K S Cortes; T Barreto; F Ferrer Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Juanita M Crook; Chad Tang; Howard Thames; Pierre Blanchard; Jeremiah Sanders; Jay Ciezki; Mira Keyes; W James Morris; Gregory Merrick; Charles Catton; Hamid Raziee; Richard Stock; Frank Sullivan; Mitch Anscher; Jeremy Millar; Steven Frank Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Cora Waldstein; Wolfgang Dörr; Richard Pötter; Joachim Widder; Gregor Goldner Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 3.621