4.6 Article

Stereotactic or conventional radiotherapy for macroscopic prostate bed recurrence: a propensity score analysis

Journal

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
Volume 127, Issue 4, Pages 449-457

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01465-w

Keywords

Prostate cancer; Macroscopic bed recurrence; Stereotactic radiotherapy; Salvage radiation therapy; Propensity score-based matched analysis

Funding

  1. AIRC Italian Association for Cancer Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the outcomes of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) with curative intent and stereotactic radiotherapy (SSRT) for macroscopic prostate recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The results showed no significant differences in terms of biochemical recurrence-free survival and progression-free survival between the two treatment groups. The matched cohort analysis revealed lower rates of toxicity for patients undergoing SSRT.
Purpose To assess outcomes between salvage radiation therapy (SRT) with curative intent and stereotactic radiotherapy for macroscopic prostate recurrence (SSRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). In order to compare these two different options, we compared their outcomes with a propensity score-based matched analysis. Methods Data from 185 patients in seven Italian centres treated for macroscopic prostate bed recurrence after RP were retrospectively collected. To make a comparison between the two treatment groups, propensity matching was applied to create comparable cohorts. Results After matching, 90 patients in the SRT and SSRT groups were selected (45 in each arm). Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show any significant differences in terms of BRFS and PFS between matched populations (p = 0.08 and p = 0.8, respectively). Multivariate models show that treatment was not associated with BRFS, neither in the whole or matched cohort, with HR of 2.15 (95%CI 0.63-7.25, p = 0.21) and 2.65 (95%CI 0.59-11.97, p = 0.21), respectively. In the matched cohort, lower rate of toxicity was confirmed for patients undergoing SSRT, with acute GI and GU adverse events reported in 4.4 versus 44.4% (p < 0.001) and 28.9 versus 46.7% (p = 0.08) of patients, and late GI and GU adverse events reported in 0 versus 13.3% (p = 0.04) and 6.7 versus 22.2% (p = 0.03) of patients, respectively. Conclusion Considering the favourable therapeutic ratio of this approach and the lower number of fractions needed, SSRT should be considered as an attractive alternative to conventional SRT in this setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available