4.7 Article

What dose of external-beam radiation is high enough for prostate cancer?

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.01.008

关键词

prostate cancer; radiotherapy; dose

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA101984, P30 CA006927, R01 CA101984-05, CA101984-01, CA-006927] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To quantify the radiotherapy dose-response of prostate cancer, adjusted for prognostic factors in a mature cohort of men treated relatively uniformly at a single institution. Patients and Methods: The study cohort consisted of 1,530 men treated with three-dimensional conformal external-beam radiotherapy between 1989 and 2002. Patients were divided into four isocenter dose groups: < 70 Gy (n = 43), 70-74.9 Gy (n = 552), 75-79.9 Gy (n = 568), and 2:80 Gy In = 367). The primary endpoints were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), defined by American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) and Phoenix (nadir + 2.0 ng/mL) criteria, and freedom from distant metastases (FFDM). Multivariate analyses were performed and adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Logit regression dose-response functions were determined at 5 and 8 years for FFBF and at 5 and 10 years for FFDM. Results: Radiotherapy dose was significant in multivariate analyses for FFBF (ASTRO and Phoenix) and FFDM. Adjusted 5-year estimates of ASTRO FFBF for the four dose groups were 60%, 68%, 76%, and 84%. Adjusted 5-year Phoenix FFBFs for the four dose groups were 70%, 81%, 83%, and 89%. Adjusted 5-year and 10-year estimates of FFDM for the four dose groups were 96% and 93 %, 97 % and 93 %, 99 % and 95 %, and 98 % and 96%. Dose-response functions showed an increasing benefit for doses >= 80 Gy. Conclusions: Doses of >= 80 Gy are recommended for most men with prostate cancer. The ASTRO definition of biochemical failure does not accurately estimate the effects of radiotherapy at 5 years because of backdating, compared to the Phoenix definition, which is less sensitive to follow-up and more reproducible over time. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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