International journal of clinical oncology · 2023
The prognostic significance of the clinical T stage and Grade Group in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated via high-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kadena Soshi, Urabe Fumihiko, Iwatani Kosuke, Suzuki Hirotaka, Imai Yu, Tashiro Kojiro, Tsuzuki Shunsuke, Honda Mariko, Koike Yusuke, Shimomura Tatsuya, Aoki Manabu, Sato Shun, Takahashi Hiroyuki, Miki Kenta, Kimura Takahiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although the optimal management of locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unclear, local definitive therapy, thus combined radiotherapy and androgen deprivation, is one option. We evaluated the long-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced PCa who underwent high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 173 patients with locally advanced PCa (cT3a-4N0-1M0) who underwent HDR-BT and EBRT. We employed Cox's proportional hazards models to identify pre-treatment predictors of oncological outcomes. Treatment outcomes (biochemical recurrence-free survival [BCRFS], clinical progression-free survival [CPFS], and castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival [CRPCFS] were compared according to the combination of the pre-treatment predictors.
RESULTS: The 5-year BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS rates were 78.5, 91.7, and 94.4% respectively; there were two PCa deaths. Multivariate analysis revealed that the clinical T stage (cT3b and cT4) and Grade Group (GG) 5 status were independent risk factors for poor BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS. In the GG ≤ 4 group, the Kaplan-Meier curves for BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS revealed excellent outcomes. However, in the GG5 group, patients with cT3b and cT4 PCa evidenced significantly poorer oncological outcomes than those with cT3a PCa.
CONCLUSION: The clinical T stage and GG status were significantly prognostic of oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced PCa. In patients of GG ≤ 4 PCa, HDR-BT was effective even in patients with cT3b or cT4 PCa. However, in patients with GG5 PCa, careful monitoring is essential, particularly of patients with cT3b or cT4 PCa.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 173 patients with locally advanced PCa (cT3a-4N0-1M0) who underwent HDR-BT and EBRT. We employed Cox's proportional hazards models to identify pre-treatment predictors of oncological outcomes. Treatment outcomes (biochemical recurrence-free survival [BCRFS], clinical progression-free survival [CPFS], and castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival [CRPCFS] were compared according to the combination of the pre-treatment predictors.
RESULTS: The 5-year BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS rates were 78.5, 91.7, and 94.4% respectively; there were two PCa deaths. Multivariate analysis revealed that the clinical T stage (cT3b and cT4) and Grade Group (GG) 5 status were independent risk factors for poor BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS. In the GG ≤ 4 group, the Kaplan-Meier curves for BCRFS, CPFS, and CRPCFS revealed excellent outcomes. However, in the GG5 group, patients with cT3b and cT4 PCa evidenced significantly poorer oncological outcomes than those with cT3a PCa.
CONCLUSION: The clinical T stage and GG status were significantly prognostic of oncological outcomes in patients with locally advanced PCa. In patients of GG ≤ 4 PCa, HDR-BT was effective even in patients with cT3b or cT4 PCa. However, in patients with GG5 PCa, careful monitoring is essential, particularly of patients with cT3b or cT4 PCa.