Radiation therapy after radical surgery in prostate cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Paz-Manrique R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10310328 | biostudies-literature | 2023
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Radiation therapy after radical surgery in prostate cancer.
Paz-Manrique Roberto R Morton Gerard G Vera Fernando Quiroa FQ Paz-Manrique Santiago S Espinoza-Briones Andrés A Deza Carlos Morante CM
Ecancermedicalscience 20230627
Radiation therapy plays a key role in the treatment of prostate cancer on its own. For higher risk diseases, the risk of recurrence following single modality therapy increases and a combination of treatment modalities may be necessary to achieve optimal results. We review clinical outcomes of adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy, including disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival. We also discuss when best to intervene with post-prostatect ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimTo compare overall mortality (OM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and other cause mortality (OCM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiotherapy (RT) in clinical node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa).Materials and methodsWithin Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) (2004-2016), we identified 4685 cN1 PCa patients, of whom 3589 (76.6%) versus 1096 (24.4%) were treated with RP versus RT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models tested the effect of RP versus RT on OM, while cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression (CRR) models addressed CSM and OCM between RP and RT patients. All analyses were repeated after the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). For CSM and OCM analyses, the propensity score was used as a covariate in the regression model.ResultsOverall, RT patients were older, harbored higher prostate-specific antigen values, higher clinical T and higher Gleason grade groups. PSM resulted in two equally sized groups of 894 RP versus 894 RT patients. After PSM, 5-year OM, CSM, and OCM rates were, respectively, 15.4% versus 25%, 9.3% versus 17%, and 6.1% versus 8% for RP versus RT (all p < 0.001) and yielded respective multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.63 (0.52-0.78, p < 0.001), 0.66 (0.52-0.86, p < 0.001), 0.71 (0.5-1.0, p = 0.05), all favoring RP. After IPTW, Cox regression models yielded HR of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.66) for OM, and CRR yielded HRs of 0.49 (0.34-0.70) and 0.54 (0.36-0.79) for, respectively, CSM and OCM, all favoring RP (all p < 0.001).ConclusionsRP may hold a CSM advantage over RT in cN1 PCa patients.
| S-EPMC9311819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Radiotherapy is an effective treatment of intermediate/high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer, however,>30% of patients relapse within 5 years. Clinicopathological parameters currently fail to identify patients prone to systemic relapse and those whom treatment intensification may be beneficial. The purpose of this study was to independently validate prognostics assays in a cohort of diagnostic biopsies from patients treated with radical radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. Patients and methods: Independent clinical validation in a cohort of diagnostic biopsies from patients treated with radical radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to assess assay performance in predicting biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) and metastasis free survival (MFS). Results: Gene expression analysis was carried out in 248 patients from the independent validation cohort and the Metastatic Assay applied. Ten-year MFS was 72% for Metastatic Assay positive patients and 94% for Metastatic Assay negative patients [HR 3.21 (1.35–7.67); P=0.003]. On multivariable analysis the Metastatic Assay remained predictive for development of distant metastases [HR 2.71 (1.11–6.63); P=0.030]. The assay retained independent prognostic performance for MFS when assessed with the Cancer of the Prostate Assessment Score (CAPRA) [HR 3.23 (1.22–8.59); P=0.019] whilst CAPRA itself was not significant [HR 1.88, (0.52–6.77); P=0.332]. Conclusions: The Metastatic Assay demonstrated significant prognostic performance in patients treated with radical radiotherapy both alone and independent of standard clinical and pathological variables. The Metastatic Assay could have clinical utility when deciding upon treatment intensification in high-risk patients.
2018-07-12 | GSE116918 | GEO
Project description:In men who do not respond to initial radiation therapy, accurate knowledge of the site of cancer recurrence or persistence is necessary to understand treatment failure. We evaluated the pathologic characteristics of recurrent/persistent prostate cancer with tumor maps from the whole-mount slides of salvage radical prostatectomies performed between 2000 and 2014. Of 216 consecutive patients, detailed tumor maps were available for 77. Sixty-nine patients (90%) were found to have tumor in the apex, of which 46% occurred in the most apical 3mm. Fifty-three patients (69%) had tumors at a distance of ≤5mm from the urethra. Five patients had tumor directly involving the urethra, all of whom had urethral invasion at the apex. Seminal vesicle involvement was seen in 32 patients (42%), two of whom had tumor only in the seminal vesicles. Sixty-two patients (81%) had tumors in the distal apex, periurethral area, or seminal vesicles, that is, areas that are not routinely biopsied. Targeting these areas could improve the accuracy of biopsy when cancer recurrence is suspected.Patient summaryWhen recurrence is suspected, clinicians should include biopsy of the distal apex, areas surrounding the urethra, and seminal vesicles. This information will help tailor successful salvage treatments.
| S-EPMC6050029 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPenile prosthesis surgery (PPS) is a commonly used treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), either as first-line therapy or in cases refractory to other treatment options. In patients with a urologic malignancy such as prostate cancer, surgical interventions like radical prostatectomy (RP) as well as non-surgical treatments such as radiation therapy can all induce ED. PPS as a treatment for ED has high satisfaction rates in the general population. Our aim was to compare sexual satisfaction in patients with prosthesis implantation for ED following RP versus ED following radiation therapy for prostate cancer.MethodsA retrospective chart review from our institutional database was conducted to identify patients who underwent PPS at our institution from 2011 to 2021. Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire data at least 6 months from implant operative date available was required for inclusion. Eligible patients were placed in one of two groups depending on etiology of ED-following RP or prostate cancer radiation therapy. To prevent crossover confounding; patients with history of pelvic radiation were excluded from the RP group and patients with history of RP were excluded from the radiation group. Data were obtained from 51 patients in the RP group and 32 patients in the radiation therapy group. Mean EDITS scores and additional survey questions were compared between the radiation and RP groups.ResultsThere was a significant difference in mean survey responses for 8 of the 11 questions in the EDITS questionnaire between the RP group and the radiation group. Additional survey questions administered also found RP patients reported significantly higher rate of satisfaction with size of penis post-operatively versus the radiation group.ConclusionsThese preliminary findings, while requiring large-scale follow-up, suggest that there is greater sexual satisfaction and penile prosthesis device satisfaction in patients undergoing IPP placement following RP versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Use of validated questionnaires should continue to be utilized in quantifying device and sexual satisfaction following PPS.
| S-EPMC10251085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We assessed survival after radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy or conformal radiation therapy vs no local therapy for metastatic prostate cancer adjusting for patient comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and other factors.We identified men 66 years old or older with metastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, conformal radiation therapy or no local therapy in the SEER-Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models before and after inverse propensity score weighting were used to assess all cause and prostate cancer specific mortality. Competing risk regression analysis was done to assess prostate cancer specific mortality.Of 4,069 men with metastatic prostate cancer radical prostatectomy in 47, intensity modulated radiation therapy in 88 and conformal radiation therapy in 107 were selected as local therapy vs no local therapy in 3,827. Radical prostatectomy was associated with a 52% decrease (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality after adjusting for sociodemographics, primary tumor characteristics, comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and bone radiation within 6 months of diagnosis. Intensity modulated radiation therapy was associated with a 62% decrease (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) in the risk of prostate specific cancer specific mortality. Conformal radiation therapy was not associated with improved survival compared to no local therapy. Propensity score weighting yielded comparable results. Competing risk analysis revealed a 42% and 57% decrease (SHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95 and SHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68, respectively) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality for radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy.Local therapy with radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy but not with conformal radiation therapy was associated with a survival benefit in men with metastatic prostate cancer. This finding warrants prospective evaluation in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4834920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate whether patients requiring radiation treatment are prepared to travel to alternative more distant centers in response to hospital choice policies, and the factors that influence this mobility.Methods and materialsWe present the results of a national cohort study using administrative hospital data for all 44,363 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent radical radiation therapy in the English National Health Service between 2010 and 2014. Using geographic information systems, we investigated the extent to which men choose to travel beyond ("bypass") their nearest radiation therapy center, and we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the effect of hospital and patient characteristics on this mobility.ResultsIn all, 20.7% of men (n=9161) bypassed their nearest radiation therapy center. Travel time had a very strong impact on where patients moved to for their treatment, but its effect was smaller for men who were younger, more affluent, and from rural areas (P for interaction always <.001). Men were prepared to travel further to hospitals that offered hypofractionated prostate radiation therapy as their standard schedule (odds ratio 3.19, P<.001), to large-scale radiation therapy units (odds ratio 1.56, P<.001), and to hospitals that were early adopters of intensity modulated radiation therapy (odds ratio 1.37, P<.001).ConclusionsMen with prostate cancer are prepared to bypass their nearest radiation therapy centers. They are more likely to travel to larger established centers and those that offer innovative technology and more convenient radiation therapy schedules. Indicators that accurately reflect the quality of radiation therapy delivered are needed to guide patients' choices for radiation therapy treatment. In their absence, patient mobility may negatively affect the efficiency and capacity of a regional or national radiation therapy service and offer perverse incentives for technology adoption.
| S-EPMC5693556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the influence of timing of salvage and adjuvant radiation therapy on outcomes after prostatectomy for prostate cancer.MethodsUsing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified prostate cancer patients diagnosed during 1995-2007 who had one or more adverse pathological features after prostatectomy. The final cohort of 6,137 eligible patients included men who received prostatectomy alone (n = 4,509) or with adjuvant (n = 894) or salvage (n = 734) radiation therapy. Primary outcomes were genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and erectile dysfunction events and survival after treatment(s).ResultsRadiation therapy after prostatectomy was associated with higher rates of gastrointestinal and genitourinary events, but not erectile dysfunction. In adjusted models, earlier treatment with adjuvant radiation therapy was not associated with increased rates of genitourinary or erectile dysfunction events compared to delayed salvage radiation therapy. Early adjuvant radiation therapy was associated with lower rates of gastrointestinal events that salvage radiation therapy, with hazard ratios of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67-0.95) for procedure-defined and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59, 0.83) for diagnosis-defined events. There was no significant difference between ART and non-ART groups (SRT or RP alone) for overall survival (HR = 1.13 95% CI = (0.96, 1.34) p = 0.148).ConclusionsRadiation therapy after prostatectomy is associated with increased rates of gastrointestinal and genitourinary events. However, earlier radiation therapy is not associated with higher rates of gastrointestinal, genitourinary or sexual events. These findings oppose the conventional belief that delaying radiation therapy reduces the risk of radiation-related complications.
| S-EPMC4338148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radiation therapy is a commonly used curative modality for prostate cancer. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) increases the curative potential of prostate radiotherapy (RT) in multiple subsets of patients. In addition to having an independent cytotoxic effect, current evidence suggests that androgen deprivation synergistically works with radiation therapy by preventing DNA repair. Given the wide-ranging toxicities of this therapy, clinicians must judiciously choose which patients may benefit from ADT and also consider the appropriate length of treatment. With recent advances in RT delivery, higher doses of radiation are currently used when compared with the dose used in historic trials, leading to the unanswered question of how RT dose interacts with ADT. Current and future clinical studies are attempting to further define the appropriate indications and patient populations for which ADT represents a clinically appropriate addition to prostate RT.
| S-EPMC6043751 | biostudies-other
Project description:Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatment that may be less expensive than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation than IMRT, toxicity could be increased. Studies comparing treatment cost to the Medicare program and toxicity are needed.We performed a retrospective study by using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age ? 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer from 2008 to 2011. Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with similar follow-up (6, 12, or 24 months). We calculated the cost of radiation therapy treatment to the Medicare program and toxicity as measured by Medicare claims; we used a random effects model to compare genitourinary (GU), GI, and other toxicity between matched patients.The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients. The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. In the 6 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.53; P = .009). At 24 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.63; P = .001). The increase in GU toxicity was due to claims indicative of urethritis, urinary incontinence, and/or obstruction.Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there appears to be a greater rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation with randomized trials is needed.
| S-EPMC3986382 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWhole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) may improve outcomes compared with prostate only radiation therapy (PORT) in some subsets of men with prostate cancer, as in the POP-RT trial. However, there is concern about increased risk of adverse effects with WPRT, including the development of radiation-induced second malignancies (SM). Given the rarity of SM, little is known about relative rates of SM between WPRT and PORT.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed of men with nonmetastatic, node-negative prostate cancer with at least 60 months of follow-up using a national database. SM probabilities were compared in men receiving either WPRT or PORT using multivariable logistic models adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Temporal sensitivity analyses stratified by year of diagnosis and length of follow-up were also conducted.ResultsOf 50,237 patients in the study, 39,338 (78.4%) received PORT, and 10,899 (21.7%) received WPRT. Median follow-up was 106.2 months (interquartile range 82.32-132.25). Crude probabilities of SM were 9.16% for WPRT and 8.88% for PORT. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for development of SM with PORT versus WPRT was 1.046 (95% confidence interval 0.968-1.130). Temporal sensitivity analyses by stratifying by year of diagnosis and follow-up length also did not demonstrate any significant difference in rates of SM between WPRT and PORT using AORs with WPRT as the referent.ConclusionsRetrospective analysis of over 50,000 patients did not demonstrate an association between WPRT and an increased probability of SM compared to PORT. Given the findings of POP-RT, the use of WPRT may become widespread for certain subsets of men. Thus, our findings could help guide how we counsel patients deciding between WPRT and PORT and suggest the need for prospective assessment of SM risk with WPRT and PORT.
| S-EPMC9246953 | biostudies-literature