Active breathing control (ABC) for Hodgkin's disease: reduction in normal tissue irradiation with deep inspiration and implications for treatment

PURPOSE

Active breathing control (ABC) temporarily immobilizes breathing. This may allow a reduction in treatment margins. This planning study assesses normal tissue irradiation and reproducibility using ABC for Hodgkin's disease.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Five patients underwent CT scans using ABC obtained at the end of normal inspiration (NI), normal expiration (NE), and deep inspiration (DI). DI scans were repeated within the same session and 1-2 weeks later. To simulate mantle radiotherapy, a CTV1 was contoured encompassing the supraclavicular region, mediastinum, hila, and part of the heart. CTV2 was the same as CTV1 but included the whole heart. CTV3 encompassed the spleen and para-aortic lymph nodes. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as CTV + 9 mm. PTVs were determined at NI, NE, and DI. A composite PTV (comp-PTV) based on the range of NI and NE PTVs was determined to represent the margin necessary for free breathing. Lung dose-mass histograms (DMH) for PTV1 and PTV2 and cardiac dose-volume histograms (DVH) for PTV3 were compared at the three different respiratory phases.

RESULTS

ABC was well-tolerated by all patients. DI breath-holds ranged from 34 to 45 s. DMHs determined for PTV1 revealed a median reduction in lung mass irradiated at DI of 12% (range, 9-24%; n = 5) compared with simulated free-breathing. PTV2 comparisons also showed a median reduction of 12% lung mass irradiated (range, 8-28%; n = 5). PTV3 analyses revealed the mean volume of heart irradiated decreased from 26% to 5% with deep inspiration (n = 5). Lung volume comparisons between intrasession and intersession DI studies revealed mean variations of 4%.

CONCLUSION

ABC is well tolerated and reproducible. Radiotherapy delivered at deep inspiration with ABC may decrease normal tissue irradiation in Hodgkin's disease patients.

Matched-pair analysis of conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost versus external-beam radiation therapy alone for locally advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We performed a matched-pair analysis to compare our institution's experience in treating locally advanced prostate cancer with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone to EBRT in combination with conformal interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boosts (EBRT + HDR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1991 to 1998, 161 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were prospectively treated with EBRT + HDR at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. Patients with any of the following characteristics were eligible for study entry: pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of >/= 10.0 ng/mL, Gleason score >/= 7, or clinical stage T2b to T3c. Pelvic EBRT (46.0 Gy) was supplemented with three (1991 through 1995) or two (1995 through 1998) ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial iridium-192 HDR implants. The brachytherapy dose was escalated from 5.50 to 10.50 Gy per implant. Each of the 161 EBRT + HDR patients was randomly matched with a unique EBRT-alone patient. Patients were matched according to PSA level, Gleason score, T stage, and follow-up duration. The median PSA follow-up was 2.5 years for both EBRT + HDR and EBRT alone.

RESULTS

EBRT + HDR patients demonstrated significantly lower PSA nadir levels (median, 0.4 ng/mL) compared with those receiving EBRT alone (median, 1.1 ng/mL). The 5-year biochemical control rates for EBRT + HDR versus EBRT-alone patients were 67% versus 44%, respectively (P <.001). On multivariate analyses, pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, T stage, and the use of EBRT alone were significantly associated with biochemical failure. Those patients in both treatment groups who experienced biochemical failure had a lower 5-year cause-specific survival rate than patients who were biochemically controlled (84% v 100%; P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Locally advanced prostate cancer patients treated with EBRT + HDR demonstrate improved biochemical control compared with those who are treated with conventional doses of EBRT alone.

Interim report of image-guided conformal high-dose-rate brachytherapy for patients with unfavorable prostate cancer: the William Beaumont phase II dose-escalating trial

PURPOSE

We analyzed our institution's experience treating patients with unfavorable prostate cancer in a prospective Phase II dose-escalating trial of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) integrated with conformal high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boosts. This interim report discusses treatment outcome and prognostic factors using this treatment approach.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From November 1991 through February 1998, 142 patients with unfavorable prostate cancer were prospectively treated in a dose-escalating trial with pelvic EBRT in combination with outpatient HDR brachytherapy at William Beaumont Hospital. Patients with any of the following characteristics were eligible: pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >/= 10.0 ng/ml, Gleason score >/= 7, or clinical stage T2b or higher. All patients received pelvic EBRT to a median total dose of 46.0 Gy. Pelvic EBRT was integrated with ultrasound-guided transperineal conformal interstitial iridium-192 HDR implants. From 1991 to 1995, 58 patients underwent three conformal interstitial HDR implants during the first, second, and third weeks of pelvic EBRT. After October 1995, 84 patients received two interstitial implants during the first and third weeks of pelvic EBRT. The dose delivered via interstitial brachytherapy was escalated from 5.50 Gy to 6.50 Gy for each implant in those patients receiving three implants, and subsequently, from 8.25 Gy to 9.50 Gy per fraction in those patients receiving two implants. To improve implant quality and reduce operator dependency, an on-line, image-guided interactive dose optimization program was utilized during each HDR implant. No patient received hormonal therapy unless treatment failure was documented. The median follow-up was 2.1 years (range: 0.2-7.2 years). Biochemical failure was defined according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel definition.

RESULTS

The pretreatment PSA level was >/= 10.0 ng/ml in 51% of patients. The biopsy Gleason score was >/= 7 in 58% of cases, and 75% of cases were clinical stage T2b or higher. Despite the high frequency of these poor prognostic factors, the actuarial biochemical control rate was 89% at 2 years and 63% at 5 years. On multivariate analysis, a higher pretreatment PSA level, higher Gleason score, higher PSA nadir level, and shorter time to nadir were associated with biochemical failure. In the entire population, 14 patients (10%) experienced clinical failure at a median interval of 1.7 years (range: 0.2-4.5 years) after completing RT. The 5-year actuarial clinical failure rate was 22%. The 5-year actuarial rates of local failure and distant metastasis were 16% and 14%, respectively. For all patients, the 5-year disease-free survival, overall survival, and cause-specific survival rates were 89%, 95%, and 96%, respectively. The 5-year actuarial rate of RTOG Grade 3 late complications was 9% with no patient experiencing Grade 4 or 5 acute or late toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic EBRT in combination with image-guided conformal HDR brachytherapy boosts appears to be an effective treatment for patients with unfavorable prostate cancer with minimal associated morbidity. Our dose-escalating trial will continue.

Defining biochemical cure for prostate carcinoma patients treated with external beam radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

The authors retrospectively reviewed their institution's long term experience with conventional external beam radiation therapy (RT) for localized prostate carcinoma to identify criteria associated with long term biochemical cure.

METHODS

Between January 1987 and December 1994, 871 patients were treated with external beam RT alone for clinically localized prostate carcinoma at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. All patients received only external beam RT to a median total dose of 66.6 grays (Gy) (range, 59.4-70.4 Gy). No patient received hormonal therapy unless treatment failure was documented. The median follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 0. 2-11.8 years). Biochemical failure was defined according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel definition.

RESULTS

In the entire study group, 380 patients experienced biochemical failure at a median interval of 1.5 years after the completion of RT. The 5-year and 7-year actuarial rates of biochemical control were 50% and 48%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, a higher pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, higher Gleason score, higher clinical T classification, higher nadir level, and shorter time interval to nadir all were associated significantly with biochemical failure (P < 0.001). The median intervals to biochemical failure for patients with pretreatment PSA levels </= 3.9 ng/mL, 4.0-19.9 ng/mL, and >/= 20.0 ng/mL were 2.2 years, 1.5 years, and 1.2 years, respectively (P < 0. 001). The median intervals to biochemical failure for patients with Gleason scores of 2-4, 5-7, and 8-10 were 1.8 years, 1.5 years, and 1.1 years, respectively (P < 0.001). Only 6 patients failed beyond 5 years after treatment even though 136 patients were at risk for failure beyond this point. When restricting analysis to 643 patients (74%) with >/= 3 years of PSA follow-up, the median nadir level for biochemically controlled patients was 0.6 ng/mL and occurred at a median interval of 1.9 years after RT versus a median nadir level of 1.3 ng/mL (P = 0.002) occurring at a median interval of 1.0 years (P < 0.001) in those patients who experienced biochemical failure. Patients were divided into subgroups based on their PSA nadir level and time to nadir. The 5-year actuarial biochemical control rates for patients with nadir values of </= 0.4 ng/mL, 0.5-0.9 ng/mL, 1. 0-1.9 ng/mL, 2.0-3.9 ng/mL, and >/= 4.0 ng/mL were 78%, 60%, 50%, 20%, and 9%, respectively (P < 0.001). The 5-year actuarial biochemical control rates for patients who reached their nadir at < 1.0 years, 1.0-1.9 years, 2.0-2.9 years, and >/= 3.0 years were 30%, 52%, 64%, and 92%, respectively (P < 0.001). All 52 patients who achieved a nadir of </= 0.4 ng/mL and required >/= 2.0 years to reach this nadir had biochemically controlled disease.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that a patient has a high likelihood of biochemical cure after treatment for prostate carcinoma with conventional doses of external beam RT if he has not demonstrated biochemical failure within 5 years of treatment. Patients with lower pretreatment PSA levels and lower Gleason scores may require longer follow-up than those with less favorable characteristics to achieve the same certainty of cure. Patients who achieve a PSA nadir </= 0.4 ng/mL and require >/= 2.0 years to reach this nadir have the highest probability of cure.

Treatment outcome with adjuvant and salvage irradiation after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine the factors associated with outcome by reviewing our institution's experience treating patients with external beam radiation therapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients received RT to the prostatic fossa after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (median dose 59.4 Gy). Thirty-eight patients received adjuvant RT within 6 months of surgery for adverse pathologic findings only. Therapeutic RT was administered to 23 patients either for a persistently elevated postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (n = 2), a rising PSA level more than 6 months after surgery (n = 9), or a biopsy-proven local recurrence (n = 12). Preoperative and preradiation PSA values, Gleason score, pathologic findings, patient age, total RT dose, and indication for RT were analyzed for their impact on biochemical control. The median follow-up was 48 months.

RESULTS

Patients treated with adjuvant RT achieved 3 and 5-year biochemical control rates of 84% and 67%, respectively. Multiple clinical, pathologic, and treatment-related factors were analyzed for an association with biochemical control. No variable was associated with 5-year outcome. The 5-year actuarial rate of biochemical control for patients treated with therapeutic RT was 16%. Multiple clinical, pathologic, and treatment-related factors were analyzed for an association with biochemical control. Only a pre-RT PSA level of 2 ng/mL or less was associated with an improved rate of biochemical control at 3 years (80% versus 27%, P = 0.001). However, at 5 years, this difference was not statistically significant. A separate analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors associated with outcome for the entire group of patients. Only the indication for RT (adjuvant versus therapeutic) was associated with 5-year outcome. Patients treated with adjuvant RT had a statistically significant improvement in 5-year actuarial rates of biochemical control (67% versus 16%, P <0.001) and disease-free survival (66% versus 46%, P = 0.037) but not in overall survival. There were no statistically significant differences between patient groups with respect to age, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, pathologic T stage, median follow-up, and total RT dose.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, patients treated with adjuvant RT after prostatectomy for adverse pathologic findings achieved excellent rates of biochemical control that were significantly better than that of similar patients treated therapeutically for persistent or rising PSA or clinical local recurrence.

The use of active breathing control (ABC) to reduce margin for breathing motion

PURPOSE

For tumors in the thorax and abdomen, reducing the treatment margin for organ motion due to breathing reduces the volume of normal tissues that will be irradiated. A higher dose can be delivered to the target, provided that the risk of marginal misses is not increased. To ensure safe margin reduction, we investigated the feasibility of using active breathing control (ABC) to temporarily immobilize the patient's breathing. Treatment planning and delivery can then be performed at identical ABC conditions with minimal margin for breathing motion.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An ABC apparatus is constructed consisting of 2 pairs of flow monitor and scissor valve, 1 each to control the inspiration and expiration paths to the patient. The patient breathes through a mouth-piece connected to the ABC apparatus. The respiratory signal is processed continuously, using a personal computer that displays the changing lung volume in real-time. After the patient's breathing pattern becomes stable, the operator activates ABC at a preselected phase in the breathing cycle. Both valves are then closed to immobilize breathing motion. Breathing motion of 12 patients were held with ABC to examine their acceptance of the procedure. The feasibility of applying ABC for treatment was tested in 5 patients by acquiring volumetric scans with a spiral computed tomography (CT) scanner during active breath-hold. Two patients had Hodgkin's disease, 2 had metastatic liver cancer, and 1 had lung cancer. Two intrafraction ABC scans were acquired at the same respiratory phase near the end of normal or deep inspiration. An additional ABC scan near the end of normal expiration was acquired for 2 patients. The ABC scans were also repeated 1 week later for a Hodgkin's patient. In 1 liver patient, ABC scans were acquired at 7 different phases of the breathing cycle to facilitate examination of the liver motion associated with ventilation. Contours of the lungs and livers were outlined when applicable. The variation of the organ positions and volumes for the different scans were quantified and compared.

RESULTS

The ABC procedure was well tolerated in the 12 patients. When ABC was applied near the end of normal expiration, the minimal duration of active breath-hold was 15 s for 1 patient with lung cancer, and 20 s or more for all other patients. The duration was greater than 40 s for 2 patients with Hodgkin's disease when ABC was applied during deep inspiration. Scan artifacts associated with normal breathing motion were not observed in the ABC scans. The analysis of the small set of intrafraction scan data indicated that with ABC, the liver volumes were reproducible at about 1%, and lung volumes to within 6 %. The excursions of a "center of target" parameter for the livers were less than 1 mm at the same respiratory phase, but were larger than 4 mm at the extremes of the breathing cycle. The inter-fraction scan study indicated that daily setup variation contributed to the uncertainty in assessing the reproducibility of organ immobilization with ABC between treatment fractions.

CONCLUSION

The results were encouraging; ABC provides a simple means to minimize breathing motion. When applied for CT scanning and treatment, the ABC procedure requires no more than standard operation of the CT scanner or the medical accelerator. The ABC scans are void of motion artifacts commonly seen on fast spiral CT scans. When acquired at different points in the breathing cycle, these ABC scans show organ motion in three-dimension (3D) that can be used to enhance treatment planning. Reproducibility of organ immobilization with ABC throughout the course of treatment must be quantified before the procedure can be applied to reduce margin for conformal treatment.

Brachytherapy boost techniques for locally advanced prostate cancer

Brachytherapy boosts in combination with external-beam radiation therapy allow a highly conformal dose of radiation to be delivered to the prostate in a safe, efficient manner. Several types of brachytherapy boost techniques are used currently. Techniques based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guidance clearly provide the most accurate method of radioactive source placement with reduced toxicity. Temporary implants employing remote afterloading systems with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy offer the added advantage of further optimizing dose distribution after needle placement. Novel brachytherapy programs using intraoperative real-time dosimetric analyses provide additional options for performing truly conformal dose escalation. Results with these newer boost techniques appear to be as good as or better than other forms of therapy in comparably staged patients. Until standardized methods of reporting treatment data are uniformly applied and longer follow-up is obtained with other treatment modalities, brachytherapy boosts combined with external-beam radiation should be considered an acceptable treatment option for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. The challenge for the future will be to determine which treatment approach is optimal given certain critical pretreatment prognostic factors. In addition, the role of adjuvant androgen deprivation in controlling this malignancy will be critical and awaits the results of several recently initiated or completed randomized trials.

The correlation between the ASTRO Consensus Panel definition of biochemical failure and clinical outcome for patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam irradiation. American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology

PURPOSE

We reviewed our institution's experience treating patients with external beam irradiation (RT) to determine if the ASTRO Consensus Panel definition of biochemical failure (BF) following radiation therapy correlates with clinical distant metastases free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and local control (LC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 1/1/87 and 12/31/92, 568 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received external beam irradiation (RT) using localized prostate fields at William Beaumont Hospital (median total dose 66.6 Gy; range: 60-70.4 Gy). Biochemical failure was defined as three consecutive increases in post-treatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) after achieving a nadir. Biochemical failure was recorded as the time midway between the nadir and the first rising PSA. Five-year actuarial rates of clinical DMFS, DFS, CSS, and LC were calculated for patients who were biochemically controlled (BC) versus those who failed biochemically. Median follow-up was 56 months (range: 24-118 months).

RESULTS

Five-year actuarial rates of DMFS, DFS, CSS, and LC were significantly greater in patients who were biochemically controlled versus those who were not (p < 0.001). In patients who were BC, the 5-year actuarial rates of DMFS, DFS, CSS, and LC were 99%, 99%, 98%, and 99% respectively. For patients who failed biochemically, the 5-year actuarial rates of DMFS, DFS, CSS, and LC were 74%, 64%, 89%, and 86% respectively. When stratifying by pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, and T stage these differences remained significant for DMFS, DFS, and CSS. The Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that BC was the single most important predictor of clinical outcome for DMFS, DFS, CSS, and LC. Pretreatment PSA and Gleason score were also independent predictors of outcome for DMFS and DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASTRO Consensus Panel definition of BF following radiation therapy correlates well with clinical DMFS, DFS, and CSS. These findings suggest that the Consensus Panel definition may be a surrogate for clinical progression and survival and should be considered a valid endpoint for separating successful versus unsuccessful treatment. Additional studies with longer follow-up will be needed to corroborate these findings.

Radiotherapy options for localized prostate cancer based upon pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen levels and biochemical control: a comprehensive review of the literature

PURPOSE

To review all the available radiotherapy (RT) literature on localized prostate cancer treatment where serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were used to both stratify patients and evaluate outcome and determine if any conclusions can be reached regarding an optimal radiotherapeutic management for this disease.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A MEDLINE search was conducted to obtain all articles in English on prostate cancer treatment employing RT from 1986-1997. Studies were considered eligible for review only if they met all the following criteria: 1) pretreatment PSA values were recorded and grouped for subsequent evaluation, 2) posttreatment PSA values were continuously monitored, 3) definitions of biochemical control were stated, and 4) the median follow-up was given.

RESULTS

Of the 246 articles identified, only 20 met the inclusion criteria; 4 using conformal external beam RT, 8 using conventional external beam RT, and 8 using interstitial brachytherapy (4 using a permanent implant alone, 3 combining external beam RT with a permanent implant, and 1 combining a conformal temporary interstitial implant boost with external beam RT). No studies using neutrons (with or without external beam RT) or androgen deprivation (combined with external beam RT) were identified where patients were stratified by pretreatment PSA levels. Results for all therapies were extremely variable with the 3-5-year rates of biochemical control for patients with pretreatment PSA levels < or = 4 ng/ml ranging from 48 to 100%, for PSA levels >4 and < or = 10 ng/ml ranging from 44 to 90%, for PSA levels >10 and < or = 20 ng/ml ranging from 27 to 89%, and for PSA levels >20 ranging from 14 to 89%. The median Gleason score, T-stage, definition of biochemical control, and follow-up were substantially different from series to series. No RT option consistently produced superior results.

CONCLUSIONS

When data are reviewed from studies using serum PSA levels to stratify patients and to evaluate treatment outcome, no consistently superior RT technique was identified. These data suggest that standard definitions of disease stage (combining clinical, pathologic, and biochemical criteria) and a common definition of biochemical cure (as developed by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel) need to be adopted to evaluate treatment efficacy and advise patients on the most appropriate radiotherapeutic option for their disease.

Conformal high dose rate iridium-192 boost brachytherapy in locally advanced prostate cancer: superior prostate-specific antigen response compared with external beam treatment

PURPOSE

Prostate-specific antigen levels are used to judge disease control of prostate cancer. No published data attest to the greater ability of conformal brachytherapy to control disease compared with conventional radiation at a single institution. This report compares the biochemical response rates in patients with stages T2b to T3c prostate cancer treated with conformal brachytherapy boost and external beam radiation with the rates in patients treated with conventional external radiation alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From November 1991 through November 1995, 58 patients received 45.6 Gy pelvic external irradiation and three high dose rate iridium-192 conformal boost implants of 5.5 to 6.5 Gy each. They were compared with 278 similarly staged patients treated from January 1987 through December 1991 with external beam radiation to prostate-only fields (median dose 66.6 Gy). No patient received androgen deprivation. Patient outcome was analyzed for biochemical control. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level > 1.5 ng/mL and rising on two consecutive values. If serial posttreatment prostate-specific antigen levels were showing a continuous downward trend, failure was not scored.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 43 months for the conventionally treated group and 26 months for the brachytherapy boost group. The median pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level was 14.3 ng/mL for the external-beam-radiation-alone group and 14.0 ng/mL for the brachytherapy boost group. The median Gleason scores were 6 and 7, respectively, for the two groups. The biochemical control rate was significantly higher in the brachytherapy boost treatment group. Three-year actuarial biochemical control rates were 85% versus 52% for the conformally and conventionally treated patients, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, the use of conformal brachytherapy boost and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level were significant prognostic determinants of biochemical control. The 3-year actuarial rates of biochemical control for conformally versus conventionally treated patients, respectively, were 83% versus 72% for a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level of 4.1 to 10.0 ng/mL, 85% versus 47% for a prostate-specific antigen level of 10.1 to 20.0 ng/mL, and 89% versus 29% for prostate-specific antigen > 20 ng/mL. When the analysis was limited to patients in both groups with a minimum 12-month follow-up, the brachytherapy boost group continued to show a higher biochemical control rate compared with the conventional radiation group (3-year actuarial rates of 86% vs 53%).

DISCUSSION

These preliminary results show a significant improvement in the biochemical response rate with conformal boost brachytherapy and pelvic external radiation compared with conventional radiation alone. These results, coupled with our previously reported acceptable toxicity rates, support the use of this technique.

An analysis of clinical and treatment related prognostic factors on outcome using biochemical control as an end-point in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam irradiation

PURPOSE

We reviewed our institution's experience in treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer with external beam irradiation (RT) to determine if previously analyzed clinical and treatment related prognostic factors affected outcome when biochemical control was used as an end-point to evaluate results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 1991, 470 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with external beam RT using localized prostate fields at William Beaumont Hospital. Biochemical control was defined as PSA nadir < or =1.5 ng/ml within 1 year of treatment. After achieving nadir, if two consecutive increases of PSA were noted, the patient was scored a failure at the time of the first increase. Prognostic factors, including the total number of days in treatment, the method of diagnosis, a history of any pretreatment transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and the type of boost were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 48 months. No statistically significant difference in rates of biochemical control were noted for treatment time, overall time (date of biopsy to completion of RT), history of any pretreatment TURP, history of diagnosis by TURP, or boost techniques. Patients diagnosed by TURP had a significant improvement in the overall rate of biochemical control (P < 0.03) compared to transrectal/transperineal biopsy. The 5-year actuarial rates were 58 versus 39%, respectively. This improvement was not evident when pretreatment PSA, T stage, or Gleason score were controlled for. On multivariate analysis, no variable was associated with outcome. When analysis was limited to a more favorable group of patients (T1/T2 tumors, pretreatment PSA < or =20 ng/ml and Gleason score <7), none of these variables were significantly predictive of biochemical control when controlling for pretreatment PSA, T stage and Gleason score.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant effect of treatment time, overall time, pretreatment TURP, or boost technique was noted on outcome in patients treated with conventional external beam irradiation when biochemical control was used as the end-point to evaluate results.

Assessing the variability of outcome for patients treated with localized prostate irradiation using different definitions of biochemical control

PURPOSE

Biochemical control using serial posttreatment serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels is being increasingly used to assess treatment efficacy for localized prostate cancer. However, no standardized definition of biochemical control has been established. We reviewed our experience treating patients with localized prostate cancer and applied three different commonly used definitions of biochemical control to determine if differences in therapeutic outcome would be observed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 1987 and December 1991, 480 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received external beam irradiation (RT) using localized prostate fields at William Beaumont Hospital. The median dose to the prostate was 66.6 Gy (range 58-70.4) using a four-field or arc technique. Pretreatment and posttreatment serum PSA levels were recorded. Over 86% (414 of 480) of patients had a pretreatment PSA level available. Three different definitions of biochemical control were used: (a) PSA nadir < 1 ng/ml within 1 year of treatment completion. After achieving nadir, if two consecutive increases of PSA were noted, the patient was scored a failure at the time of the first increase; (b) PSA nadir < 1.5 ng/ml within 1 year of treatment completion. After achieving nadir, if two consecutive increases of PSA were noted, the patient was scored a failure at the time of the first increase; (c) Posttreatment PSA nadir < 4 ng/ml without a time limit. Once the nadir was achieved, if it did not rise above normal the patient was considered to be biochemically controlled. Clinical local control was defined as no palpable prostate nodularity beyond 18 months, no new prostate nodularity, or a negative prostate biopsy.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 48 months (range 3-112). Pretreatment PSA values were correlated with treatment outcome using the three definitions of biochemical control as well as clinical local control. Pretreatment PSA values were stratified into five groups (Group 1: PSA < 4; Group 2: PSA 4-10; Group 3: PSA 10-15; Group 4: PSA 15-20; and Group 5: PSA > 20), and 5-year actuarial rates of biochemical control were calculated using the three biochemical control and one clinical local control definitions. For Group 1, 5-year actuarial rates of biochemical control were 84%, 90%, 91%, and 96% for Definitions 1-3 and clinical local control, respectively. For Group 2, 5-year actuarial control rates were 45%, 54%, 74%, and 92% for the four definitions, respectively. For Group 3, 5-year actuarial control rates were 26%, 31%, 63%, and 100% for the four definitions, respectively. For Group 4, 5-year actuarial control rates were 24%, 24%, 50%, and 100% for the four definitions, respectively. Finally, for Group 5, 5-year actuarial control rates were 5%, 14%, 15%, and 89% for the four definitions, respectively. Depending on the definition used, statistically significant differences overall in outcome rates were observed. Differences between all four definitions for all pairwise comparisons ranged from 5 to 53% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

When different definitions of biochemical control are used in assessing treatment outcome, significantly different rates of success are noted. Until a standardized definition of biochemical control is adopted, differences in treatment outcome cannot be meaningfully compared.

Lack of radiosensitization after paclitaxel treatment of three human carcinoma cell lines

BACKGROUND

Several recent studies have suggested radiosensitizing effects of paclitaxel, a microtubular inhibitor. To test the universality of this finding, the interaction between paclitaxel and radiation treatment of cell lines derived from three common human carcinomas MCF-7 (breast cancer); DUT-145 (prostate cancer); and HT-29 (colon cancer) was evaluated. The study focused on the ability of paclitaxel to block cells at the G2-M phase of the cell cycle and potentially enhance the radiation sensitivity of the cells.

METHODS

All cell lines were exposed to three different clinically achievable paclitaxel concentrations ranging from 2 nM to 25 nM. Paclitaxel pretreatment for 12 and 24 hours before radiation was tested in all three cell lines. The radiation dose ranged from 0 to 8 Gy delivered in a single fraction. Cellular survival after treatment with paclitaxel and/or radiation was determined by clonogenic assay. Cell cycle distribution as determined by flow cytometry was performed after various dose-time combinations of paclitaxel.

RESULTS

Cytotoxicity studies with paclitaxel alone demonstrated a time-dependent and dose-dependent survival relationship for all three cell lines. Resultant surviving fractions were in the range of 5 to 90% after 24-hour exposure to paclitaxel alone. The interaction between paclitaxel and radiation was primarily additive in each of the three cell lines for all paclitaxel dose-time combinations studied. Flow cytometric analysis failed to reveal a prominent G2-M block in all three cell lines after paclitaxel treatment for 24 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Paclitaxel lacked a radiosensitizing effect on MCF-7, DUT-145, and HT-29 cells in this study. These results should be considered when designing clinical trials that use paclitaxel as a potential radiosensitizer of certain human carcinomas.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis involving the sphenoid sinus and superior orbital fissure

We report Langerhans cell histiocytosis involving the sphenoid sinus and extending to the orbital apex. MR and CT imaging, particularly with contrast, both were helpful in defining the extent of the lesion before treatment. MR was a useful examination for follow-up after treatment. Langerhans cell histiocytosis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of lesions of this region in the pediatric age group.

Regulation of HSP70 and HSP28 gene expression: absence of compensatory interactions

We have previously reported the lack of HSP28 gene expression during acute and chronic thermotolerance development in L929 cells (J Cell Physiol 152: 118-125, 1992; Cancer Res 52: 5787, 1992). In contrast to HSP28, an extremely high level of inducible HSP70 synthesis was observed. These results led us to investigate the possibility of compensatory interactions between HSP70 and HSP28. To test the hypothesis, L929 cells were transfected with the human HSP28 gene contained in plasmid pCMV27. Data from Western blot and two-dimensional gel electrophoresis of [3H] leucine and [32P] orthophosphate-labeled proteins showed the synthesis and phosphorylation of HSP28 in transfected cells after heating at 45 degrees C for 10 min. However, the expression of constitutive and inducible HSP70 genes, along with the synthesis of their proteins, was not decreased after heat shock. These results suggest an independent regulation of HSP28 and HSP70 gene expression.

Effect of desipramine on norepinephrine metabolism in humans: interaction with aging

To determine whether differences in neuronal reuptake contribute to age-related changes of sympathetic nervous system activity, we compared norepinephrine (NE) release and metabolism during [3H]NE infusion and decay in six young (age 19-26 yr) and seven older (age 61-73 yr) healthy nonobese subjects. Subjects were studied on a control day and on a separate day after desipramine (DMI; 125 mg orally), a neuronal reuptake blocker. Compartmental analysis of plasma NE specific activity was used to determine several NE kinetic parameters. Plasma NE levels and NE spillover rates were higher in the elderly. Although plasma NE was unaffected by DMI in both age groups, both the metabolic clearance rate of NE from plasma and the rate of NE spillover into plasma fell in young and older groups during DMI. Furthermore, DMI dramatically lowered the mass of NE in the extravascular compartment and the rate of NE entry into the extravascular compartment. Thus neuronal uptake blockade has major effects on NE release as well as NE metabolism in humans. However, age-related differences in NE kinetics cannot be explained by differences in neuronal uptake.

Preventive care in diabetes mellitus. Current practice in urban health-care system

Early identification and treatment of complications of diabetes mellitus may reduce the severity of the complications. As part of a program to reduce these complications in the Denver Department of Health and Hospitals patient population, our study determined how frequently preventive care, e.g., fundoscopic examinations, referral to an ophthalmologist, foot examinations, and assessment of cardiovascular risk factors, was provided to diabetic patients. With the use of billing records to identify a large sample of diabetic patients, a chart review of 544 patients was conducted. During the study year, the mean +/- SE number of visits to primary-care clinics was 5.7 +/- 0.22, with 86.4% having at least one visit. Most diabetic patients were seen by primary-care physicians; only 9% received care in a specialized diabetes clinic. Despite frequent primary-care visits, most diabetic patients in this county health-care system did not have documentation of care to detect complications of diabetes mellitus, and referral services for detection and treatment of these complications were infrequently used. Moreover, among patients seen on greater than or equal to 10 occasions in a primary-care setting, preventive care was not provided to 30% of the patients. Preventive care does not appear to be a regular part of a primary-care visit for most of the diabetic patients in this study.