Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/223
Title: | Is modern external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy still a viable alternative for prostate cancer in an era of robotic surgery and brachytherapy: a comparison of Australian series |
Authors: | Wilcox, S. W. Aherne, N. J. McLachlan, C. S. McKay, M. J. Last, A. J. Shakespeare, T. P. |
MNCLHD Author: | Wilcox, Shea Aherne, Noel Last, Andrew Shakespeare, Thomas P. |
Issue Date: | Feb-2015 |
Citation: | Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. 2015 Feb;59(1):125-33. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12275. |
Abstract: | Introduction: We compare the results of modern external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), using combined androgen deprivation and dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy with MRI-CT fusion and daily image guidance with fiducial markers (DE-IG-IMRT), with recently published Australian series of brachytherapy and surgery. Methods: Five-year actuarial biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCaSS) were calculated for 675 patients treated with DE-IG-IMRT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients had intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) disease. A search was conducted identifying Australian reports from 2005 onwards of IR and HR patients treated with surgery or brachytherapy, reporting actuarial outcomes at 3 years or later. Results: With a median follow-up of 59 months, our 5-year bDFS was 93.3% overall: 95.5% for IR and 91.3% for HR disease. MFS was 96.9% overall (99.0% IR, 94.9% HR), and PCaSS was 98.8% overall (100% IR, 97.7% HR). Prevalence of Grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity at 5 years was 1.3% and 1.6%, with 0.3% Grade 3 genitourinary toxicity and no Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. Eight reports of brachytherapy and surgery were identified. The HDR brachytherapy series' median 5-year bDFS was 82.5%, MFS 90.0% and PCaSS 97.9%. One surgical series reported 5-year bDFS of 65.5% for HR patients. One LDR series reported 5-year bDFS of 85% for IR patients. Conclusions: Modern EBRT is at least as effective as modern Australian surgical and brachytherapy techniques. All patients considering treatment for localised prostate cancer should be referred to a radiation oncologist to discuss EBRT as an equivalent option. Keywords: brachytherapy; external beam radiotherapy; intensity-modulated radiotherapy prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy. |
URI: | https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/223 |
Keywords: | Brachytherapy;Prostatic Neoplasms;Androgen Antagonists;Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated |
Appears in Collections: | Oncology / Cancer |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.