Biochemical Outcome After Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, or Interstitial Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
CONTEXT.— Interstitial radiation (implant) therapy is used to treat clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate, but how it compares with other treatments is not known. OBJECTIVE.— To estimate control of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiatio...
Saved in:
Published in | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 280; no. 11; pp. 969 - 974 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Chicago, IL
American Medical Association
16.09.1998
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | CONTEXT.— Interstitial radiation (implant) therapy is used to treat clinically
localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate, but how it compares with other treatments
is not known. OBJECTIVE.— To estimate control of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical
prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation (RT), or implant with or without
neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy in patients with clinically localized
prostate cancer. DESIGN.— Retrospective cohort study of outcome data compared using Cox regression
multivariable analyses. SETTING AND PATIENTS.— A total of 1872 men treated between January 1989 and October 1997 with
an RP (n=888) or implant with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation
therapy (n=218) at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
or RT (n=766) at the Joint Center for Radiation Therapy, Boston, Mass, were
enrolled. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE.— Actuarial freedom from PSA failure (defined as PSA outcome). RESULTS.— The relative risk (RR) of PSA failure in low-risk patients (stage T1c,
T2a and PSA level ≤10 ng/mL and Gleason score ≤6) treated using RT,
implant plus androgen deprivation therapy, or implant therapy was 1.1 (95%
confidence interval [CI], 0.5-2.7), 0.5 (95% CI, 0.1-1.9), and 1.1 (95% CI,
0.3-3.6), respectively, compared with those patients treated with RP. The
RRs of PSA failure in the intermediate-risk patients (stage T2b or Gleason
score of 7 or PSA level >10 and ≤20 ng/mL) and high-risk patients (stage
T2c or PSA level >20 ng/mL or Gleason score ≥8) treated with implant compared
with RP were 3.1 (95% CI, 1.5-6.1) and 3.0 (95% CI, 1.8-5.0), respectively.
The addition of androgen deprivation to implant therapy did not improve PSA
outcome in high-risk patients but resulted in a PSA outcome that was not statistically
different compared with the results obtained using RP or RT in intermediate-risk
patients. These results were unchanged when patients were stratified using
the traditional rankings of biopsy Gleason scores of 2 through 4 vs 5 through
6 vs 7 vs 8 through 10. CONCLUSIONS.— Low-risk patients had estimates of 5-year PSA outcome after treatment
with RP, RT, or implant with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation that
were not statistically different, whereas intermediate- and high-risk patients
treated with RP or RT did better then those treated by implant. Prospective
randomized trials are needed to verify these findings. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0098-7484 1538-3598 |
DOI: | 10.1001/jama.280.11.969 |