Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/223
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWilcox, S. W.-
dc.contributor.authorAherne, N. J.-
dc.contributor.authorMcLachlan, C. S.-
dc.contributor.authorMcKay, M. J.-
dc.contributor.authorLast, A. J.-
dc.contributor.authorShakespeare, T. P.-
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-04T03:25:27Z-
dc.date.available2024-12-04T03:25:27Z-
dc.date.issued2015-02-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. 2015 Feb;59(1):125-33. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12275.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/223-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: 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.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectBrachytherapyen
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasmsen
dc.subjectAndrogen Antagonistsen
dc.subjectRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulateden
dc.titleIs 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 seriesen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorWilcox, Shea-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorAherne, Noel-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorLast, Andrew-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorShakespeare, Thomas P.-
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.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing