Objectives: Whole pelvic irradiation [WPRT] versus prostate only radiation [PO-RT] in node negative high risk disease is controversial. This study aims to assess survival benefit of PO-RT against WPRT in high risk negative nodes prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients with high risk prostate cancer and negative pelvic lymph nodes treated randomly either with WPRT [arm1] or PORT [arm2] from June-2014-June-2017. Eligible patients were ˃18 years, risk factors selected are ≥T3, GS≥8, or PSA≥20nglml. All patients received hormonal therapy as neo-adjuvant and concurrent with radiation and followed to 2-3 years. Univariate and multivariate analysis are performed. The primary end point was progression free survival [PFS], and the secondary was OAS and toxicity assessment. Results: Ninety four patients included, 48 received WPRT arm and 46 received PORT. With median follow up 26 months there was no significant difference in PFS, or OAS [P=0.994 and 0.505] respectively between both arms. On univariate analysis PFS was significantly better in lower stage [P=0.014], lower GS [P=0.000], lower number of risk factors [P=0.016]. Only 2 cases with late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity in observed in WPRT [P=0.044], and one case late grade 3 genitourinary in PORT with no significance [P=0.096]. Conclusion: Addition of pelvic irradiation in high risk node negative prostate cancer has no impact on survival in comparison to PORT.
| Published in | Cancer Research Journal (Volume 7, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13 |
| Page(s) | 18-24 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Prostate Cancer, Nodal Irradiation, Pelvic Radiation, High Risk
| [1] | Amal S., Hussein M., Nabiel N., Hoda Baraka, and Hossam Kamel: Cancer incidence in Egypt: Results of the National population based cancer registery program. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2014 :437971. |
| [2] | Arfa M., Rabah D., Wahdan I. : Awareness of general public towards cancer prostate & screening practice in Arabic communities: a comparative multi-center study. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2012; 13:4321-4326. |
| [3] | American Cancer Society, Prostate Cancer, 2015. |
| [4] | Cooperberg M., Broering J., & Carroll P.,: Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010; 28:1117–1123 . |
| [5] | Thompson I., Thrasher J., Aus G., Burnett A., Canby-Hagino E., Cookson M., et al.: Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: J. Urol. 2007; 177: 2106–2131. |
| [6] | Roach III M., Lu J., Pilepich M., Asbell S., Mohiuddin M., Terry R., et al: Four prognostic groups predict long-term survival from prostate cancer following radiotherapy alone on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2000; 47: 609–615 . |
| [7] | Roach III M., Weinberg V., Nash M., Sandler H., McLaughlin P., Kattan M.: Defining high risk prostate cancer with risk groups and nomograms: implications for designing clinical trials. J. Urol.2006; 176:16–20. |
| [8] | Coen J., Zietman A., Thakral H., Shipley W.: Radical radiation for localized prostate cancer: local persistence of disease results in a late wave of metastases. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2002; 20: 3199–3205. |
| [9] | Zelefsky M., Reuter V., Fuks Z., Scardino P, Shippy A.: Influence of local tumor control on distant metastases and cancer related mortality after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Journal of Urology, 2008; 179:1368–1373. |
| [10] | Pilepich M., Winter K., Lawton C., Krisch R., Wolkov H., Movsas B., et al: Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in prostate carcinoma--long-term results of phase III RTOG 85-31. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005; 61:1285–1290 . |
| [11] | Widmark A., Klepp O., Solberg A., Damber J, Angelsen A, Fransson P, et al.: Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer [SPCG-7/SFUO-3]: an open randomised phase III trial. The Lancet. 2009; 373: 301–308. |
| [12] | Warde P., Mason M., Ding K., Kirkbride P., Brundage M., Cowan R., et al: Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet.2011; 378: 2104–2111. |
| [13] | Mason M., Parulekar W., Sydes M., Brundage M., Kirkbride P., Gospodarowicz M., et al.: Final report of the intergroup randomized study of combined androgen-deprivation therapy plus radiotherapy versus androgen-deprivation therapy alone in locally advanced prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015; 33: 2143–2150. |
| [14] | Roach III M., Marquez C., You H., Narayan P., Coleman L., Nseyo U., et al.: Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.1994; 28:33–37. |
| [15] | Roach III M., DeSilvio M., Valicenti R., Grignon D., Asbell S., Lawton C., et al.: Whole-pelvis, “mini-pelvis,” or prostate-only external beam radiotherapy after neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy in patients treated in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413 trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006; 66: 647–653. |
| [16] | Roach M III., DeSilvio M., Lawton C., Uhl V., Machtay M., Seider M., et al: Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol.2003; 21:1904-1911. |
| [17] | Roach III M., Hunt D., Lawton C., Hsu I., Lustig R., Seider M., et al.: R adiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 9413: a randomized trial comparing Whole Pelvic Radiation Therapy [WPRT] to Prostate only [PORT] and Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy [NHT] to Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy [AHT]. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2013 ; 87:106–107. |
| [18] | Aizer A., Yu J., McKeon A., Decker R., Colberg J., Peschel R.: Whole pelvic radiotherapy versus prostate only radiotherapy in the management of locally advanced or aggressive prostate adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 75:1344-1349. |
| [19] | Cozzarini C., Noris Chiorda B., Sini C., Fiorino C., Briganti A., Montorsi F., et al. Hematologic toxicity in patients treated with post-prostatectomy whole-pelvis irradiation with different intensity modulated radiation therapy techniques is not negligible and is prolonged: Preliminary results of a longitudinal, observational study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 95: 690–695. |
| [20] | Ennis R.: Uncertainties regarding pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol .2004; 22:2254-2255. |
| [21] | Vargas C., Galalae R., Demanes J., Harsolia A., Meldolesi E., Nürnberg N., et al: Lack of benefit of pelvic radiation in prostate cancer patients with a high risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes treated with high-dose radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2005; 63:1474-1482. |
| [22] | Pommiere P., Chabaud S., Leon J., Richaud P., Lesaunier F., Le Prise E., et al.: Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25:5366-5373. |
| [23] | Lawton C., DeSilvio M., Roach III M., Uhl V, Kirsch R, Seider M., et al.: An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007; 69: 646–655. |
| [24] | Amini A., Jones B., Yeh N., Rusthoven C., Armstrong H., Kavanagh B.: Survival Outcomes of Whole-Pelvic Versus Prostate-Only Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients With Use of the National Cancer Data Base. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2015; 93: 1052-1063. |
| [25] | Mohler J., Kantoff P., Armstrong A., Bahnson R., Cohen M., D'Amico A., et al.: Prostate cancer, version 2.2014,” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.2015; 12: 686–718. |
| [26] | Albert J., Karen A., Roach III M., Howard I. . High-risk prostate cancer—classification and therapy. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2015; 11:308-323. |
| [27] | Kuban D, Tucker S, Dong L, et al. Long-term results of the MD Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 70:67-74. |
| [28] | Zietman A., DeSilvio M., Slater J., Rossi C., Miller D., Adams J., et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 294:1233-1239. |
| [29] | Michalski J, Moughan J, Purdy J, Bosch W., Bahary J., Lau H., et al. A randomized trial of 79.2 Gy versus 70.2 Gy radiation therapy [RT] for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33 [suppl 7; abstr 4]. |
| [30] | Valicenti RK, Bae K, Michalski J, Sandler, H., Shipley, W., Lin, A., et al. Does hormone therapy reduce disease recurrence in prostate cancer patients receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy? An analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-06. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 79: 1323 -1329. |
| [31] | Pan C., Kim K., Taylor J., McLaughlin P., Sandler H.: Influence of 3D-CRT pelvic irradiation on outcome in prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2002; 53:1139-1145. |
| [32] | Asbell S, Krall J, Pilepich M, Baerwald H., Sause W., Hank G., et al: Elective pelvic irradiation in stage A2, B carcinoma of the prostate: Analysis of RTOG 77-06. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.1988; 15:1307-1316. |
| [33] | Asbell S, Martz K, Shin K, Sause W., Doggett R., Perez C., et al: Impact of surgical staging in evaluating the radiotherapeutic outcome in RTOG #77-06, a phase III study for T1BN0M0 [A2] and T2N0M0 [B] prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 40:769-782. |
| [34] | Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M, Uhl V, Kirsch R, Seider M., et al: An update of the phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic [WP] to prostate only [PO] radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression [TAS]: Updated analysis of RTOG 94-13. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2005; 63:S19 [suppl]. |
| [35] | Seaward S., Weinberg V., Lewis P., Leigh B. , Phillips T., Roach III M.. Identification of a high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer subgroup receiving maximum benefit from whole-pelvic irradiation. Cancer J Sci Am. 1998; 4:370-377. |
| [36] | Milecki P., Baczyk M., Skowronek J., Andrzej , Zbigniew K, Piotr l. Benefit of whole pelvic radiotherapy combined with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for the high-risk prostate cancer. J Biomed Biotechnol 2009; 625394. |
| [37] | Lior Z, Mig-Hui C, Daniel , Sharon A., Michael J., Akash N., et al. Whole pelvis versus prostate-only radiotherapy with or without short course androgen deprivation therapy and mortality risk. Cl Genitour cancer. 2015; 13: 555–561. |
| [38] | Vargas C, Demanes J, Boike T, Barnaba M., Skoolisariyaporn P., Schour L., et al. Matched-pair analysis of prostate cancer patients with a high risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes treated with and without pelvic RT and high-dose radiation using high dose rate brachytherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2006; 29:451-457. |
| [39] | Soto D, Glaser S, Roberts R, Schipper M., McLaughlin P., Ray M., et al. Impact of common iliac nodal treatment on radiation outcomes in localized prostate cancer. Urology 2008; 71:313-317. |
| [40] | Jacob R., Hanlon A., Horwitz E., Movsas B., Uzzo R., Pollack A. Role of prostate dose escalation in patients with greater than 15% risk of pelvic lymph node involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 61: 695-701. |
| [41] | Perez C, Michalski J, Brown K, Ann L.: Nonrandomized evaluation of pelvic lymph node irradiation in localized carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.1996; 36:573-584. |
APA Style
Rasha Mohamed Abdel Latif, Ghada Ezzat Eladawei. (2019). Localised Prostate Versus Whole Pelvic Irradiation in High Risk Prostate Cancer, Single Institute Experience. Cancer Research Journal, 7(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13
ACS Style
Rasha Mohamed Abdel Latif; Ghada Ezzat Eladawei. Localised Prostate Versus Whole Pelvic Irradiation in High Risk Prostate Cancer, Single Institute Experience. Cancer Res. J. 2019, 7(1), 18-24. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13
AMA Style
Rasha Mohamed Abdel Latif, Ghada Ezzat Eladawei. Localised Prostate Versus Whole Pelvic Irradiation in High Risk Prostate Cancer, Single Institute Experience. Cancer Res J. 2019;7(1):18-24. doi: 10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13,
author = {Rasha Mohamed Abdel Latif and Ghada Ezzat Eladawei},
title = {Localised Prostate Versus Whole Pelvic Irradiation in High Risk Prostate Cancer, Single Institute Experience},
journal = {Cancer Research Journal},
volume = {7},
number = {1},
pages = {18-24},
doi = {10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.crj.20190701.13},
abstract = {Objectives: Whole pelvic irradiation [WPRT] versus prostate only radiation [PO-RT] in node negative high risk disease is controversial. This study aims to assess survival benefit of PO-RT against WPRT in high risk negative nodes prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients with high risk prostate cancer and negative pelvic lymph nodes treated randomly either with WPRT [arm1] or PORT [arm2] from June-2014-June-2017. Eligible patients were ˃18 years, risk factors selected are ≥T3, GS≥8, or PSA≥20nglml. All patients received hormonal therapy as neo-adjuvant and concurrent with radiation and followed to 2-3 years. Univariate and multivariate analysis are performed. The primary end point was progression free survival [PFS], and the secondary was OAS and toxicity assessment. Results: Ninety four patients included, 48 received WPRT arm and 46 received PORT. With median follow up 26 months there was no significant difference in PFS, or OAS [P=0.994 and 0.505] respectively between both arms. On univariate analysis PFS was significantly better in lower stage [P=0.014], lower GS [P=0.000], lower number of risk factors [P=0.016]. Only 2 cases with late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity in observed in WPRT [P=0.044], and one case late grade 3 genitourinary in PORT with no significance [P=0.096]. Conclusion: Addition of pelvic irradiation in high risk node negative prostate cancer has no impact on survival in comparison to PORT.},
year = {2019}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Localised Prostate Versus Whole Pelvic Irradiation in High Risk Prostate Cancer, Single Institute Experience AU - Rasha Mohamed Abdel Latif AU - Ghada Ezzat Eladawei Y1 - 2019/04/01 PY - 2019 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13 DO - 10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13 T2 - Cancer Research Journal JF - Cancer Research Journal JO - Cancer Research Journal SP - 18 EP - 24 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8214 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.crj.20190701.13 AB - Objectives: Whole pelvic irradiation [WPRT] versus prostate only radiation [PO-RT] in node negative high risk disease is controversial. This study aims to assess survival benefit of PO-RT against WPRT in high risk negative nodes prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients with high risk prostate cancer and negative pelvic lymph nodes treated randomly either with WPRT [arm1] or PORT [arm2] from June-2014-June-2017. Eligible patients were ˃18 years, risk factors selected are ≥T3, GS≥8, or PSA≥20nglml. All patients received hormonal therapy as neo-adjuvant and concurrent with radiation and followed to 2-3 years. Univariate and multivariate analysis are performed. The primary end point was progression free survival [PFS], and the secondary was OAS and toxicity assessment. Results: Ninety four patients included, 48 received WPRT arm and 46 received PORT. With median follow up 26 months there was no significant difference in PFS, or OAS [P=0.994 and 0.505] respectively between both arms. On univariate analysis PFS was significantly better in lower stage [P=0.014], lower GS [P=0.000], lower number of risk factors [P=0.016]. Only 2 cases with late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity in observed in WPRT [P=0.044], and one case late grade 3 genitourinary in PORT with no significance [P=0.096]. Conclusion: Addition of pelvic irradiation in high risk node negative prostate cancer has no impact on survival in comparison to PORT. VL - 7 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: