Journal Home
Search for

Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 1298-1302 (December 2008)


View previous. 24 of 47 View next.

A Multi-Institutional Matched-Control Analysis of Adjuvant and Salvage Postoperative Radiation Therapy for pT3-4N0 Prostate Cancer

Edouard J. Trabulsia, Richard K. ValicentibCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Alexandra L. Hanlonc, Thomas M. Pisanskye, Howard M. Sandlerf, Deborah A. Kubani, Charles N. Cattonl, Jeff M. Michalskim, Michael J. Zelefskyn, Patrick A. Kupelianp, Daniel W. Linr, Mitchell S. Anschers, Kevin M. Slawinj, Claus G. Roehrbornk, Jeffrey D. Formang, Stanley L. Liauwt, Larry L. Kestinh, Theodore L. DeWeeseu, Peter T. Scardinoo, Andrew J. Stephensonq, Alan Pollackd

Received 16 January 2008; accepted 13 May 2008. published online 30 July 2008.

Refers to article:
Editorial Comment
Mack Roach
Urology
December 2008 (Vol. 72, Issue 6, Pages 1302-1303)
Full Text | Full-Text PDF (107 KB)
Reply
Edouard J. Trabulsi, Richard K. Valicenti
Urology
December 2008 (Vol. 72, Issue 6, Page 1303)
Full Text | Full-Text PDF (91 KB)
Objectives

It is unclear whether postoperative salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and early adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy lead to equivalent long-term tumor control. We studied a group of patients undergoing ART by comparing them with a matched control group undergoing SRT after biochemical failure.

Methods

Using a multi-institutional database of 2299 patients, 449 patients with pT3-4N0 disease were eligible for inclusion, including 211 patients receiving ART and 238 patients receiving SRT. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to preoperative prostate-specific antigen Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion, surgical margin status, and follow-up from date of surgery.

Results

A total of 192 patients were matched (96:96). The median follow-up was 94 months from surgery and 73 months from RT completion. There was a significant reduction in biochemical failure with ART compared with SRT. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) from surgery was 75% after ART, compared with 66% for SRT (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.6, P = .049). The 5-year FFBF from the end of RT was 73% after ART, compared with 50% after SRT (HR = 2.3, log rank [LR] P = .0007). From the end of RT, SRT and Gleason score ≥8 were independent predictors of diminished FFBF. From the date of surgery, Gleason score ≥8 was a significant predictor of FFBF.

Conclusions

Early ART for pT3-4N0 prostate cancer significantly reduces the risk of long-term biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy compared with SRT. Gleason score ≥8 was the only factor on multivariate analysis associated with metastasic progression.

a Department of Urology, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

b Department of Radiation Oncology, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

c Department of Biostatistics, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

d Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

e Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

f Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

g Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan

h Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan

i Department of Radiation Oncology, MD, Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

j Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

k Department of Urology, University of Texas-Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

l Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

m Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri

n Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

o Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

p Department of Radiation Oncology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

q Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

r Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington

s Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina

t Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida

u Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Richard K. Valicenti, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, 111 S. 11th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107

PII: S0090-4295(08)00770-X

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.057


View previous. 24 of 47 View next.