Curative external beam radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: results in 231 patients treated in Lyon

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Late gastrointestinal toxicity after radiation for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The current study was designed to determine rates and predictors of late, lower gastrointestinal toxicity after radiation therapy in a population-based cohort of older men with prostate cancer.

METHODS

The study population consisted of men with localized or regional stage prostate cancer who were age > or =66 years and were diagnosed between 1992 and 1999 who were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Gastrointestinal diagnoses were ascertained through claims from 6 to 60 months after diagnosis. The relative rates of diagnoses in the radiation group versus the nonradiation group were used as a means of estimating toxicity from radiotherapy. Cox modeling was used to determine factors associated with gastrointestinal diagnoses.

RESULTS

A total of 57,955 men were included, 24,130 of whom were treated with radiation therapy. Among patients with 5 years of follow-up, the rates of gastrointestinal diagnoses were 19.4% higher in irradiated patients than among patients who did not have local therapy. Hemorrhage was the most common diagnosis, and was increased by 18.9% among patients treated with radiation (39.6% of irradiated patients vs. comparison rates of 18.2% in patients treated with radical prostatectomy and 20.7% in patients with no local therapy). Diagnostic lower endoscopies were performed in an additional 20.9% of men (32.4% of men treated with radiation vs. 12.7% of men who underwent prostatectomy). In all, 4.4% of irradiated men were hospitalized with a gastrointestinal diagnosis versus comparison rates of 3.2% among men with no local therapy. In multivariate models, increasing patient age, hormonal therapy, comorbidity, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and hemorrhoids were all associated with gastrointestinal diagnoses consistent with toxicity, whereas tumor stage and grade were not predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower gastrointestinal toxicity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer continues for at least 5 years and may be more common than previously reported.

Evidence-based review of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: An ASTRO outcomes initiative

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of the evidence to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for localized prostate cancer; provide a clear presentation of the key clinical outcome questions related to the use of 3D-CRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer that may be answered by a formal literature review; and provide concise information on whether 3D-CRT improves the clinical outcomes in the treatment of localized prostate cancer compared with conventional RT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a systematic review of the literature through a structured process developed by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology's Outcomes Committee that involved the creation of a multidisciplinary task force, development of clinical outcome questions, a formal literature review and data abstraction, data review, and outside peer review.

RESULTS

Seven key clinical questions were identified. The results and task force conclusions of the literature review for each question are reported.

CONCLUSION

The technological goals of reducing morbidity with 3D-CRT have been achieved. Randomized trials and follow-up of completed trials remain necessary to address these clinical outcomes specifically with regard to patient subsets and the use of hormonal therapy.