Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The optimal radiotherapeutic approach to treat clinically localized prostate cancer is yet to be established. Current modern radiotherapeutic options involve either the primary use of external beam radiation therapy or the delivery of interstitial brachytherapy. The state-of-the-art techniques consist of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or image-guided transperineal brachytherapy (IGTPB). There are several purported models used in risk appropriation for men with prostate cancer. For patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tumor Gleason score, and tumor stage are widely available and are useful in combination to stratify outcome. Comparison of morbidity between 3D-CRT and IGTPB has been limited because of the lack of consistent toxicity scoring guidelines and stratification criteria. There is a limited number of reports of health-related quality of life after prostate cancer treatment comparing IGTPB with 3D-CRT. Appropriate patient selection is important for radical local treatment and to determine the optimal radiotherapeutic technique.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProstate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice
PublisherElsevier Ltd.
Pages387-390
Number of pages4
ISBN (Print)9780122869815
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cathode ray tubes
Radiotherapy
Brachytherapy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Tumors
Oncology
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Toxicity
Image-Guided Radiotherapy
Health
Neoplasm Grading
Patient Selection
Neoplasms
Quality of Life
Guidelines
Morbidity
Therapeutics
Serum

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)

Cite this

Valicenti, R. K. (2003). Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another? In Prostate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice (pp. 387-390). Elsevier Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012286981-5/50043-4

Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another? / Valicenti, Richard K.

Prostate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice. Elsevier Ltd., 2003. p. 387-390.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Valicenti, RK 2003, Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another? in Prostate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice. Elsevier Ltd., pp. 387-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012286981-5/50043-4
Valicenti RK. Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another? In Prostate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice. Elsevier Ltd. 2003. p. 387-390 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012286981-5/50043-4
Valicenti, Richard K. / Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another?. Prostate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice. Elsevier Ltd., 2003. pp. 387-390
@inbook{1e5999a447384bf29d3659d36f12f2a3,
title = "Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another?",
abstract = "The optimal radiotherapeutic approach to treat clinically localized prostate cancer is yet to be established. Current modern radiotherapeutic options involve either the primary use of external beam radiation therapy or the delivery of interstitial brachytherapy. The state-of-the-art techniques consist of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or image-guided transperineal brachytherapy (IGTPB). There are several purported models used in risk appropriation for men with prostate cancer. For patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tumor Gleason score, and tumor stage are widely available and are useful in combination to stratify outcome. Comparison of morbidity between 3D-CRT and IGTPB has been limited because of the lack of consistent toxicity scoring guidelines and stratification criteria. There is a limited number of reports of health-related quality of life after prostate cancer treatment comparing IGTPB with 3D-CRT. Appropriate patient selection is important for radical local treatment and to determine the optimal radiotherapeutic technique.",
author = "Valicenti, {Richard K}",
year = "2003",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/B978-012286981-5/50043-4",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780122869815",
pages = "387--390",
booktitle = "Prostate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd.",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Is One Form of Radiation Therapy Better Over Another?

AU - Valicenti, Richard K

PY - 2003/7

Y1 - 2003/7

N2 - The optimal radiotherapeutic approach to treat clinically localized prostate cancer is yet to be established. Current modern radiotherapeutic options involve either the primary use of external beam radiation therapy or the delivery of interstitial brachytherapy. The state-of-the-art techniques consist of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or image-guided transperineal brachytherapy (IGTPB). There are several purported models used in risk appropriation for men with prostate cancer. For patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tumor Gleason score, and tumor stage are widely available and are useful in combination to stratify outcome. Comparison of morbidity between 3D-CRT and IGTPB has been limited because of the lack of consistent toxicity scoring guidelines and stratification criteria. There is a limited number of reports of health-related quality of life after prostate cancer treatment comparing IGTPB with 3D-CRT. Appropriate patient selection is important for radical local treatment and to determine the optimal radiotherapeutic technique.

AB - The optimal radiotherapeutic approach to treat clinically localized prostate cancer is yet to be established. Current modern radiotherapeutic options involve either the primary use of external beam radiation therapy or the delivery of interstitial brachytherapy. The state-of-the-art techniques consist of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or image-guided transperineal brachytherapy (IGTPB). There are several purported models used in risk appropriation for men with prostate cancer. For patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tumor Gleason score, and tumor stage are widely available and are useful in combination to stratify outcome. Comparison of morbidity between 3D-CRT and IGTPB has been limited because of the lack of consistent toxicity scoring guidelines and stratification criteria. There is a limited number of reports of health-related quality of life after prostate cancer treatment comparing IGTPB with 3D-CRT. Appropriate patient selection is important for radical local treatment and to determine the optimal radiotherapeutic technique.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902217623&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902217623&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/B978-012286981-5/50043-4

DO - 10.1016/B978-012286981-5/50043-4

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780122869815

SP - 387

EP - 390

BT - Prostate Cancer: Science and Clinical Practice

PB - Elsevier Ltd.

ER -