Results of a phase I study of CN706, a replication-competent cytolytic adenovirus, for the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate which is locally-recurrent following radiation therapy

The role of androgen ablation in patients with biochemical or local failure after definitive radiation therapy: a survey of practice patterns of urologists and radiation oncologists in the United States

To identify therapeutic patterns for putative prostate cancer treatment failures and the role played by androgen ablation therapy in these patients, a questionnaire study was undertaken with urologists and radiation oncologists who had attended a brachytherapy forum at the Seattle Prostate Institute (SPI). Hypothetical questions were asked about recommendations the physicians would give to a patient demonstrating biochemical or local failure after external-beam radiation therapy. Most of the physicians queried were in private practice; 53% were radiation oncologists and 47% were urologists. The respondents' recommendations for a hypothetical patient, who was 45 to 65 years of age, with a biopsy-proven local recurrence was treatment with androgen ablation (35% of respondents), radical prostatectomy (25%), interstitial brachytherapy (20%), and observation (19%). In the 65- to 75-year-old patient with a local recurrence, the respondents recommended observation (43%), androgen ablation (35%), interstitial brachytherapy (17%), and radical prostatectomy (4%). In patients receiving androgen ablation for a biochemical failure alone, there was no consensus on whether to use luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist alone, total androgen ablation, orchiectomy, or intermittent androgen ablation. Criteria that prompted physicians to initiate androgen ablation were based on the rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increase (67%), an absolute PSA number (24%), or clinical failure (9%). In the younger patient with a local recurrence, local intervention with radical prostatectomy or interstitial brachytherapy was recommended most often, followed by androgen ablation, then by observation. In the older patient, observation was recommended most often, followed closely by androgen ablation. Overall, there was a lack of consensus on how to deliver androgen ablation. However, there was remarkable agreement between urologists and radiation oncologists on virtually all issues queried.