Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessing the prognostic significance of transrectal ultrasound extracapsular extension in prostate cancer.
Yoon, F; Rodrigues, G; D'Souza, D; Radwan, J; Lock, M; Bauman, G; Ash, R; Venketesan, V; Downey, D; Stitt, L; Weisz, D; Izawa, J.
Afiliação
  • Yoon F; Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Centre and University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) ; 18(2): 117-24, 2006 Mar.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16523811
ABSTRACT

AIMS:

To determine the prognostic value of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-detected extraprostatic disease for prostate cancer in patients receiving radical external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A chart review of 181 patients treated with radical EBRT for prostate cancer was conducted. All patients underwent TRUS assessment by one radiologist. The median radiation dose delivered to the prostate was 66 Gy (range 53-70 Gy) in 33 fractions (range 20-39 fractions). Median follow-up time for all patients was 6.5 years. Sixty-four (35%) out of 181 patients were found to have extracapsular disease on TRUS. Clinical relapse was defined as the first occurrence of either salvage hormonal therapy administration by the treating oncologist or clinical, radiological, and/or pathologic evidence of recurrent or progressive disease. In terms of biochemical failure, two prognostic variable analyses were carried out using both the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus guidelines and the Houston definition of biochemical failure. The primary end point for the prognostic variable analyses was time to first clinical or biochemical failure (CBF).

RESULTS:

For time to CBF using the ASTRO consensus guidelines for biochemical failure, univariable analysis revealed that the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (P = 0.018), clinical T stage (P = 0.002), Gleason score (P = 0.021), adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.032) and TRUS T staging (P = 0.0001) were statistically significant prognostic factors. On multivariable analysis, clinical T stage (P = 0.051) was of borderline statistical significance, whereas PSA (P = 0.036), TRUS T stage (P = 0.0002) and adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.015) were found to be independent prognostic factors. For time to CBF using the Houston definition of biochemical failure, univariable analysis revealed that PSA (P = 0.001), Gleason score (P = 0.026) and prostate volume (P = 0.013) were statistically significant prognostic factors. On multivariable analysis, PSA (P = 0.002), Gleason score (P = 0.012), and adjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.041) were found to be independent prognostic factors. TRUS T staging was not found to be independently significant.

CONCLUSIONS:

A clear role for TRUS staging as an independent prognostic factor, in the setting of other more established variables, such as Gleason grade, PSA, and digital rectal examination (DRE) T stage, was not confirmed in this study, population.
Assuntos
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Ultrassonografia de Intervenção / Endossonografia Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2006 Tipo de documento: Article
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Ultrassonografia de Intervenção / Endossonografia Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2006 Tipo de documento: Article