Salvage radiotherapy for isolated prostate specific antigen increase after radical prostatectomy: evaluation of prognostic factors and creation of a prognostic scoring system.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the results and prognostic factors associated with radiotherapy for a detectable serum prostate specific antigen level after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 1987 through July 2003, 368 patients received radiotherapy for a detectable prostate specific antigen level (biochemical relapse) as the sole evidence of recurrence after radical prostatectomy for node negative prostate cancer. Estimated survival and relapse-free probabilities were obtained via Kaplan-Meier estimation. Associations of patient factors with survival and biochemical relapse were investigated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: With a median followup of 5 years the 5 and 8-year freedom from biochemical relapse were an estimated 46% (95% CI 41%-53%) and 35% (95% CI 29%-43%) while survival was 92% (95% CI 89%-95%) and 80% (95% CI 74%-87%), respectively. Patient and treatment variables showing evidence of association with biochemical relapse on multivariate analysis included pathological stage T3a or less vs T3b (seminal vesicle involvement, p = 0.029), pathological Gleason score 7 or less vs 8 or greater (p <0.001) and pre-radiotherapy prostate specific antigen (p <0.001). Four biochemical failure risk groups were created by assigning seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score and pre-radiotherapy prostate specific antigen each a score of 0 to 2. These individual scores were summed. The freedom from biochemical failure at 5 years for each risk group was 0 to 1-69%, 2-53%, 3-26% and 4 to 5-6%. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of seminal vesicle involvement and high Gleason score in the radical prostatectomy specimen are inherent predictors of adverse outcome. Early referral for salvage radiotherapy can decrease subsequent biochemical relapse.

A historical prospective cohort study of carotid artery stenosis after radiotherapy for head and neck malignancies.

PURPOSE: To determine carotid artery stenosis incidence after radiotherapy for head-and-neck neoplasms. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This historical prospective cohort study comprised 44 head-and-neck cancer survivors who received unilateral neck radiotherapy between 1974 and 1999. They underwent bilateral carotid duplex ultrasonography to detect carotid artery stenosis. RESULTS: The incidence of significant carotid stenosis (8 of 44 [18%]) in the irradiated neck was higher than that in the contralateral unirradiated neck (3 of 44 [7%]), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). The rate of significant carotid stenosis events increased as the time after radiotherapy increased. The risk of ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis was higher in patients who had undergone a neck dissection vs. those who had not. Patients with significant ipsilateral stenosis also tended to be older than those without significant stenosis. No other patient or treatment variables correlated with risk of carotid artery stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: For long-term survivors after neck dissection and irradiation, especially those who are symptomatic, ultrasonographic carotid artery screening should be considered.

Initial experience with ultrasound localization for positioning prostate cancer patients for external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland and its immediate surrounding anatomy has been used to guide the positioning of patients for the treatment of prostate cancer. This process was evaluated in terms of (1) the reproducibility of the ultrasound measurement; (2) a comparison of patient position between ultrasound localization and skin marks determined from a CT treatment planning scan; (3) the predictive indicators of patient anatomy not well suited for ultrasound localization; (4) the measurement of prostate organ displacement resulting from ultrasound probe pressure; and (5) quality assurance measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The reproducibility of the ultrasound positioning process was evaluated for same-day repeat positioning by the same ultrasound operator (22 patients) and for measurements made by 2 different operators (38 patients). Differences between conventional patient positioning (CT localization with skin markings) and ultrasound-based positioning were determined for 38 patients. The pelvic anatomy was evaluated for 34 patients with pretreatment CT scans to identify predictors of poor ultrasound image quality. The displacement of the prostate resulting from pressure of the ultrasound probe was measured for 16 patients with duplicate CT scans with and without a simulated probe. Finally, daily, monthly, and semiannual quality assurance tests were evaluated. RESULTS: Self-verification tests of ultrasound positioning indicated a shift of <3 mm in approximately 95% of cases. Interoperator tests indicated shifts of <3 mm in approximately 80-90% of cases. The mean difference in patient positioning between conventional and ultrasound localization for lateral shifts was 0.3 mm (SD 2.5): vertical, 1.3 mm (SD 4.7 mm) and longitudinal, 1.0 mm (SD 5.1). However, on a single day, the differences were >10 mm in 1.5% of lateral shifts, 7% of longitudinal shifts, and 7% of vertical shifts. The depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis, but not the bladder volume, were significant predictive indicators of poor ultrasound imaging. The pressure of the ultrasound probe displaced the prostate in 7 of the 16 patients by an average distance of 3.1 mm; 9 patients (56%) showed no displacement. Finally, the quality assurance tests detected ultrasound equipment defects. CONCLUSION: The ultrasound positioning system is reproducible and may indicate the need for significant positioning moves. Factors that predict poor image quality are the depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis. The prostate gland may be displaced a small amount by the pressure of the ultrasound probe. A quality assurance program is necessary to detect ultrasound equipment defects that could result in patient alignment errors.