Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Panminerva Med ; 59(3): 210-220, 2017 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28256120

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to analyze, retrospectively, in prostate cancer patients treated in our Centre with external beam radiotherapy, the prognostic factors and their impact on the outcome in terms of cancer-specific survival (CSS), biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) and clinical disease-free survival (CDFS). METHODS: From October 1999 and March 2012, 1080 patients were treated with radiotherapy at our Institution: 87% of them were classified as ≤cT2, 83% had a Gleason Score (GS) ≤7, their mean of iPSA was 18 ng/mL, and the rate of clinical positive nodes was 1%. The mean follow-up was 81 months. RESULTS: The statistically significant prognostic factors for all groups of patients at both, univariate and multivariate analysis, were the GS and the iPSA. In intermediate- and high- or very-high-risk patients at multivariate analysis other prognostic factors for CSS were positive nodes on computed tomography (CT) scan and rectal preparation during the treatment; for BDFS, the prognostic factors were patient risk classification, positive lymph nodes on CT scan and rectal/bladder preparation; for CDFS, the prognostic factors were the number of positive core on biopsy (P=0.003), positive lymph nodes on CT scan, and radiotherapy (RT) dose. In high/very-high risk patient group at multivariate analysis other prognostic factors for CSS were clinical/radiological stage and RT dose, for BDFS they were adjuvant hormone therapy, clinical/radiological stage, and RT dose >77.7 Gy, and for CDFS they were clinical/radiological stage and RT dose >77.7 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm the prognostic factors described in the recent literature, with the addition of rectal/bladder preparation, generally known for its effect on toxicity but not yet on outcome.


Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Radiotherapy Dosage , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biopsy, Large-Core Needle , Disease Progression , Disease-Free Survival , Humans , Kallikreins/blood , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lymphatic Metastasis , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Neoplasm Grading , Proportional Hazards Models , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Radiotherapy/adverse effects , Recurrence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
2.
Panminerva Med ; 58(2): 121-9, 2016 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26785374

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to report definitive outcome of prostate cancer patients treated with dose escalation during a period of 12.5 years. METHODS: From October 1999 to March 2012 we treated 1080 patients affected by prostate cancer, using External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT). The mean age was 69.2 years. Most of the patients (69%) were staged as cT2, Gleason Score (GS)<7; the mean iPSA 18 ng/mL; the rate of clinical positive nodes was 1%. Our intention to treat was the following: for low risk patients 72 Gy; for intermediate risk patients 75.6 Gy and for high-very high risk patients 79.2 Gy in 1.8 Gy/day fractions. From 2008 we changed the fractionation scheme and the doses were the following: for low risk patients 74 Gy and for intermediate and high-very high risk patients 78 Gy in 2.0 Gy/day fractions. Whole pelvis irradiation was performed in high-very high risk patients with 43.2-50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy per day. The mean follow-up was 81 months. RESULTS: For the whole population at 5 and 10 years, the prostate cancer specific overall survival (CSOS) was 96.7% and 92.2% respectively; the clinical disease free survival (CDFS) 88% and 77%; the biochemical disease free survival (BDFS) 75% and 58.5%. The 5 and 10 years CSOS was 98% and 96% respectively for low risk, 96% and 92% for intermediate risk and 89% and 82% for high-very high risk patients. In intermediate and high-very high risk groups at 5 and 10 years the CSOS was 95.2% and 89.2% respectively, the CDFS 84.5% and 70% and the BDFS 70% and 51% respectively. In high-very high risk patients at 5 and 10 years the CSOS were respectively 89% and 82% the CDFS was 78% and 61% and BDFS was 61% and 34%. In whole patient population the BDFS was related with the dose level (P=0.006) as well as the CDFS (P=0.003) with a cut off of 75.6 Gy. In the subgroup of intermediate plus high-very high risk patients the BDFS and the CDFS were dose-related with a cut off of 75.6 Gy (P=0.007 and P=0.0018 respectively). Finally, in the subgroup of high-very high risk patients we found that the CSOS, the BDFS and the CDFS were related to the dose level with a cut-off of 77.7 Gy (P=0.017; P=0.006 and P=0.038, respectively). Overall gastrointestinal (GI) acute and late G2 toxicities were respectively 5 % and 3.8%; GI acute and late >G3 toxicities were respectively 0.5% and 0.9%; acute and late >G2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities were respectively 10.5% and 2.6%; finally GU acute and late >G3 toxicities were respectively 0.6% and 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The dose escalation is not relevant for the outcome in low risk patients that can benefit from relatively moderate doses (72-74 Gy). For intermediate and high-very high risk patients the dose becomes significant to levels above 75.6 Gy; particularly in high-very high risk doses >77.7 Gy correlate with an improved outcome. Patients receiving dose >77.7 Gy presented a higher rate of overall GI and GU toxicity, but the number of grade >2 remains low. Our results, consolidated by a long follow-up, corroborate the literature data, confirming that 3D-CRT can allow a safe dose escalation without significantly increasing the severe toxicity.


Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Androgen Antagonists/therapeutic use , Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation , Follow-Up Studies , Gastrointestinal Tract/radiation effects , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Radiotherapy Dosage , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome , Urogenital System/radiation effects
3.
Panminerva Med ; 58(2): 109-14, 2016 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26211465

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This work aims to definitely show the ability of percentage of positive biopsy cores (%PC) to independently predict biochemical outcome beyond traditional pretreatment risk-factors in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radiotherapy. METHODS: A cohort of 2493 men belonging to the EUREKA-2 retrospective multicentric database on (PCa) and treated with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) as primary treatment comprised the study population (median follow-up 50 months). A Cox regression time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive power of %PC, both in univariate and multivariate settings, with age, pretreatment PSA, clinical-radiological staging, bioptic Gleason Score (bGS), RT dose and RT +/- ADT as covariates. RESULTS: P statistics for %PC is lower than 0.001 both in univariate and multivariate models. %PC as a continuous variable yields an AUC of 69% in ROC curve analysis for biochemical relapse. Four classes of %PC (1-20%, 21-50%, 51-80% and 81-100%) distinctly split patients for risk of biochemical relapse (overall log-rank test P<0.0001), with biochemical progression free survival (bPFS) at 5-years ranging from 88% to 58% and 10-years bPFS ranging from 80% to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: We strongly affirm the usefulness of %PC information beyond main risk factors (PSA, staging and bGS) in predicting biochemical recurrence after EBRT for PCa. The stratification of patients according to %PC may be valuable to further discriminate cases with favourable or adverse prognosis.


Subject(s)
Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biopsy , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Proportional Hazards Models , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...