Christian Adame González1,2, José Trinidad Álvarez Romero3, Mario Morachel Y Rodríguez2, Armando Félix Leyva4, Mario Ponce Viveros4, Michelle Aline Villavicencio Queijeiro5, María Yicel Bautista Bautista Hernández6, Leticia Gracia-Medrano Valdemar7. 1. Departamento de Física Médica, Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, Av. Félix Cuevas 540, Col. Del Valle, 03229 Ciudad de México, Mexico. 2. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Escuela Superior de Física y Matemáticas, Av. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Col. San Pedro Zacatenco, 07738 Ciudad de México, Mexico. 3. LSCD, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares, La Marquesa, Ocoyoacac, 52750 Estado de México, Mexico. 4. Departamento de Radioterapia, Hospital de Oncología, Centro Médico Nacional, Siglo XXI, Av. Cuauhtémoc 330, Col. Doctores, 06720 Ciudad de México, Mexico. 5. Departamento de Radioterapia, Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, Av. Félix Cuevas 540, Col. Del Valle, 03229 Ciudad de México, Mexico. 6. Departamento de Radioterapia, Hospital General de México, Dr. Eduardo Liceaga, Dr. Balmis 148, Col. Doctores, 06720 Ciudad de México, Mexico. 7. Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en Sistemas, Circuito Escolar 3000, C.U., 04510 Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Abstract
AIM: Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rate is determined by a cohort of Mexican patients (n = 595) with prostate cancer who received treatment with external radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer were collected from CMN Siglo XXI (IMSS), CMN 20 de Noviembre (ISSSTE), and Hospital General de México (HGM). For the IMSS, 173 patients that are treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and 250 with SBRT, for the ISSSTE 57 patients are treated with 3D-CRT and on the HGM 115 patients are managed with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The percentage of patients by risk group is: low 11.1%, intermediate 35.1% and high 53.8%. The average follow-up is 39 months, and the Phoenix criterion was used to determine the bRFS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier technique for the construction of the survival curves and, the Cox proportional hazards to model the cofactors. RESULTS: (a) The bRFS rates obtained are 95.9% for the SBRT (7 Gy fx, IMSS), 94.6% for the 3D-CRT (1.8 Gy fx, IMSS), 91.3% to the 3D-CRT (2.65 Gy fx, IMSS), 89.1% for the SBRT (7.25 Gy fx, IMSS), 88.7% for the IMRT (1.8 Gy fx, HGM) %, and 87.7% for the 3D-CRT (1.8 Gy fx, ISSSTE). (b) There is no statistically significant difference in the bRFS rates by fractionation scheme, c) Although the numerical difference in the bRFS rate per risk group is 95.5%, 93.8% and 89.1% for low, intermediate and high risk, respectively, these are not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The RT techniques for the treatment of PCa are statistically equivalent with respect to the bRFS rate. This paper confirms that the bRFS rates of Mexican PCa patients who were treated with conventional vs. hypofractionated schemes do not differ significantly.
AIM: Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rate is determined by a cohort of Mexican patients (n = 595) with prostate cancer who received treatment with external radiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer were collected from CMN Siglo XXI (IMSS), CMN 20 de Noviembre (ISSSTE), and Hospital General de México (HGM). For the IMSS, 173 patients that are treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and 250 with SBRT, for the ISSSTE 57 patients are treated with 3D-CRT and on the HGM 115 patients are managed with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The percentage of patients by risk group is: low 11.1%, intermediate 35.1% and high 53.8%. The average follow-up is 39 months, and the Phoenix criterion was used to determine the bRFS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier technique for the construction of the survival curves and, the Cox proportional hazards to model the cofactors. RESULTS: (a) The bRFS rates obtained are 95.9% for the SBRT (7 Gy fx, IMSS), 94.6% for the 3D-CRT (1.8 Gy fx, IMSS), 91.3% to the 3D-CRT (2.65 Gy fx, IMSS), 89.1% for the SBRT (7.25 Gy fx, IMSS), 88.7% for the IMRT (1.8 Gy fx, HGM) %, and 87.7% for the 3D-CRT (1.8 Gy fx, ISSSTE). (b) There is no statistically significant difference in the bRFS rates by fractionation scheme, c) Although the numerical difference in the bRFS rate per risk group is 95.5%, 93.8% and 89.1% for low, intermediate and high risk, respectively, these are not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The RT techniques for the treatment of PCa are statistically equivalent with respect to the bRFS rate. This paper confirms that the bRFS rates of Mexican PCa patients who were treated with conventional vs. hypofractionated schemes do not differ significantly.
Authors: Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J Rubio-Briones; M Ramírez-Backhaus; A Gómez-Ferrer; C Mir; J Domínguez-Escrig; A Collado; I Iborra; J Casanova; E Solsona; J M Mascarós; A Calatrava Journal: Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) Date: 2018-04-07
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-11
Authors: William C Jackson; Jessica Silva; Holly E Hartman; Robert T Dess; Amar U Kishan; Whitney H Beeler; Laila A Gharzai; Elizabeth M Jaworski; Rohit Mehra; Jason W D Hearn; Todd M Morgan; Simpa S Salami; Matthew R Cooperberg; Brandon A Mahal; Payal D Soni; Samuel Kaffenberger; Paul L Nguyen; Neil Desai; Felix Y Feng; Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Kyounghwa Bae; Jerry D Slater; William U Shipley; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; David A Bush; Margie Lunt; Daphna Y Spiegel; Rafi Skowronski; B Rodney Jabola; Carl J Rossi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wim L J van Putten; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Geert J L H van Leenders; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher R King; Debra Freeman; Irving Kaplan; Donald Fuller; Giampaolo Bolzicco; Sean Collins; Robert Meier; Jason Wang; Patrick Kupelian; Michael Steinberg; Alan Katz Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Gordana Jovic; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Richard A Cowan; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John H L Matthews; Jeremy L Millar; Claire Murphy; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Saul A Beltran-Ontiveros; Martha A Fernandez-Galindo; Jose M Moreno-Ortiz; Jose A Contreras-Gutierrez; Jesus Madueña-Molina; Eliakym Arambula-Meraz; Emir Leal-Leon; Delia M Becerril-Camacho; Veronica J Picos-Cardenas; Carla Angulo-Rojo; Diana Z Velazquez; Francisco Jimenez-Trejo; Francisco Gallardo-Vera; Daniel Diaz Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 6.575