Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group

Peter Grimm, Ignace Billiet, David Bostwick, Adam P. Dicker, Steven Frank, Jos Immerzeel, Mira Keyes, Patrick Kupelian, W. Robert Lee, Stefan MacHtens, Jyoti Mayadev, Brian J. Moran, Gregory Merrick, Jeremy Millar, MacK Roach, Richard Stock, Katsuto Shinohara, Mark Scholz, Ed Weber, Anthony Zietman & 5 others Michael Zelefsky, Jason Wong, Stacy Wentworth, Robyn Vera, Stephen Langley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

279 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18 000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)22-29
Number of pages8
JournalBJU International
Volume109
Issue numberSUPPL. 1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2012

Fingerprint

Prostate-Specific Antigen
Prostatic Neoplasms
Brachytherapy
Survival
Radiation
Therapeutics
Prostatectomy
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Cryotherapy
Robotics
Androgens
Protons
Seeds
Randomized Controlled Trials
Physicians

Keywords

  • biochemical-free progression
  • brachytherapy
  • cryotherapy
  • prostate cancer
  • protons
  • radical prostatectomy
  • radiotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group. / Grimm, Peter; Billiet, Ignace; Bostwick, David; Dicker, Adam P.; Frank, Steven; Immerzeel, Jos; Keyes, Mira; Kupelian, Patrick; Lee, W. Robert; MacHtens, Stefan; Mayadev, Jyoti; Moran, Brian J.; Merrick, Gregory; Millar, Jeremy; Roach, MacK; Stock, Richard; Shinohara, Katsuto; Scholz, Mark; Weber, Ed; Zietman, Anthony; Zelefsky, Michael; Wong, Jason; Wentworth, Stacy; Vera, Robyn; Langley, Stephen.

In: BJU International, Vol. 109, No. SUPPL. 1, 02.2012, p. 22-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Grimm, P, Billiet, I, Bostwick, D, Dicker, AP, Frank, S, Immerzeel, J, Keyes, M, Kupelian, P, Lee, WR, MacHtens, S, Mayadev, J, Moran, BJ, Merrick, G, Millar, J, Roach, M, Stock, R, Shinohara, K, Scholz, M, Weber, E, Zietman, A, Zelefsky, M, Wong, J, Wentworth, S, Vera, R & Langley, S 2012, 'Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group', BJU International, vol. 109, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10827.x
Grimm, Peter ; Billiet, Ignace ; Bostwick, David ; Dicker, Adam P. ; Frank, Steven ; Immerzeel, Jos ; Keyes, Mira ; Kupelian, Patrick ; Lee, W. Robert ; MacHtens, Stefan ; Mayadev, Jyoti ; Moran, Brian J. ; Merrick, Gregory ; Millar, Jeremy ; Roach, MacK ; Stock, Richard ; Shinohara, Katsuto ; Scholz, Mark ; Weber, Ed ; Zietman, Anthony ; Zelefsky, Michael ; Wong, Jason ; Wentworth, Stacy ; Vera, Robyn ; Langley, Stephen. / Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group. In: BJU International. 2012 ; Vol. 109, No. SUPPL. 1. pp. 22-29.
@article{88f54c6919624f3f8032108302a194bd,
title = "Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group",
abstract = "A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18 000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.",
keywords = "biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy, cryotherapy, prostate cancer, protons, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy",
author = "Peter Grimm and Ignace Billiet and David Bostwick and Dicker, {Adam P.} and Steven Frank and Jos Immerzeel and Mira Keyes and Patrick Kupelian and Lee, {W. Robert} and Stefan MacHtens and Jyoti Mayadev and Moran, {Brian J.} and Gregory Merrick and Jeremy Millar and MacK Roach and Richard Stock and Katsuto Shinohara and Mark Scholz and Ed Weber and Anthony Zietman and Michael Zelefsky and Jason Wong and Stacy Wentworth and Robyn Vera and Stephen Langley",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10827.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "109",
pages = "22--29",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "SUPPL. 1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative analysis of prostate-specific antigen free survival outcomes for patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treatment by radical therapy. Results from the Prostate Cancer Results Study Group

AU - Grimm, Peter

AU - Billiet, Ignace

AU - Bostwick, David

AU - Dicker, Adam P.

AU - Frank, Steven

AU - Immerzeel, Jos

AU - Keyes, Mira

AU - Kupelian, Patrick

AU - Lee, W. Robert

AU - MacHtens, Stefan

AU - Mayadev, Jyoti

AU - Moran, Brian J.

AU - Merrick, Gregory

AU - Millar, Jeremy

AU - Roach, MacK

AU - Stock, Richard

AU - Shinohara, Katsuto

AU - Scholz, Mark

AU - Weber, Ed

AU - Zietman, Anthony

AU - Zelefsky, Michael

AU - Wong, Jason

AU - Wentworth, Stacy

AU - Vera, Robyn

AU - Langley, Stephen

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18 000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

AB - A large number of studies have been conducted on the primary therapy of prostate cancer but very few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. The comparison of outcomes from individual studies involving surgery (radical prostatectomy or robotic radical prostatectomy), external beam radiation (EBRT) (conformal, intensity modulated radiotherapy, protons), brachytherapy, cryotherapy or high intensity focused ultrasound remains problematic due to the non-uniformity of reporting results and the use of varied disease outcome endpoints. Technical advances in these treatments have also made long-term comparisons difficult. The Prostate Cancer Results Study Group was formed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments. This international group conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify all studies involving treatment of localized prostate cancer published during 2000-2010. Over 18 000 papers were identified and a further selection was made based on the following key criteria: minimum/median follow-up of 5 years; stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups; clinical and pathological staging; accepted standard definitions for prostate-specific antigen failure; minimum patient number of 100 in each risk group (50 for high-risk group). A statistical analysis (standard deviational ellipse) of the study outcomes suggested that, in terms of biochemical-free progression, brachytherapy provides superior outcome in patients with low-risk disease. For intermediate-risk disease, the combination of EBRT and brachytherapy appears equivalent to brachytherapy alone. For high-risk patients, combination therapies involving EBRT and brachytherapy plus or minus androgen deprivation therapy appear superior to more localized treatments such as seed implant alone, surgery alone or EBRT. It is anticipated that the study will assist physicians and patients in selecting treatment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

KW - biochemical-free progression

KW - brachytherapy

KW - cryotherapy

KW - prostate cancer

KW - protons

KW - radical prostatectomy

KW - radiotherapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862952700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862952700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10827.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10827.x

M3 - Article

VL - 109

SP - 22

EP - 29

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - SUPPL. 1

ER -