4.6 Article

The impact of prostate-specific antigen persistence after radical prostatectomy on the efficacy of salvage radiotherapy in patients with primary N0 prostate cancer

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 124, 期 5, 页码 785-791

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bju.14851

关键词

prostate cancer; prostatectomy; PSA persistence; salvage radiotherapy; matched case analysis; #ProstateCancer; #PCSM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To test whether salvage radiotherapy (SRT) in patients with lymph node negative (N0) prostate cancer is equally effective with persistent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA rising from the undetectable range (<0.1 ng/mL) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients and methods We assessed post-SRT PSA progression-free survival (PFS) in 555 patients with prostate cancer. The entire cohort was compared with a risk-adjusted subgroup of 112 patient pairs with matching pre-RP PSA level (+/- 10 ng/mL), Gleason score (<= 6 vs 7 vs >= 8), and pre-SRT PSA level (+/- 0.5 ng/mL). Results The median follow-up was 6.1 years. After RP, PSA was undetectable in 422 and persistent in 133 patients. PSA persistence and a pre-SRT PSA level of >= 0.5 ng/mL reduced Kaplan-Meier rates of PFS significantly. In multivariate analysis of the entire cohort and after risk adjustment, the pre-SRT PSA level but not post-RP PSA persistence was a significant parameter. In the matched cohort's subgroup with early SRT at a PSA level of <0.5 ng/mL, a trend towards a worse outcome with post-RP PSA persistence was observed. Delayed SRT with a PSA level >= 0.5 ng/mL led to a PFS of <30%, irrespective of the post-RP PSA level. Conclusion In patients with N0 prostate cancer with post-RP PSA persistence, early SRT at a PSA level RP undetectable PSA. They might benefit from intensified therapy, but larger case numbers are required to substantiate this conclusion. In patients with a PSA level >= 0.5 ng/mL and higher-risk features associated with post-RP PSA persistence, SRT alone is unlikely to provide long-term freedom from further progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据