Knife or needles? A cohort analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy for men with low- or intermediate-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate

Brachytherapy

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 429-434

  Fisher, Christine M ^a   Troncoso, Patricia ^a   Swanson, David A ^a   Munsell, Mark F ^a   Kuban, Deborah A ^a   Lee, Andrew K ^a   Yeh, Shih Fan ^a   Frank, Steven J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Gleason score; Interstitial implant; LDR brachytherapy; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Prostate surgery; Seeds

Indexed keywords

IODINE 125; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; BRACHYTHERAPY; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATECTOMY; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADENOCARCINOMA; AGED; BRACHYTHERAPY; COHORT STUDIES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREVALENCE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TEXAS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84868090283     PISSN: 15384721     EISSN: 18731449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2012.04.009     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Giberti C., Chiono L., Gallo F., et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for low-risk prostatic cancer: A prospective study. World J Urol 2009, 27:607-612.
2. Wallace K., Fleshner N., Jewett M., et al. Impact of a multi-disciplinary patient education session on accrual to a difficult clinical trial: The Toronto experience with the surgical prostatectomy versus interstitial radiation intervention trial. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:4158-4162.
3. Potters L., Morgenstern C., Calugaru E., et al. 12-year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2005, 173:1562-1566.
4. Merrick G.S., Butler W.M., Lief J.H., et al. Is brachytherapy comparable with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiation for clinically localized prostate cancer?. Tech Urol 2001, 7:12-19.
5. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B., et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998, 280:969-974.
6. Morris W.J., Keyes M., Palma D., et al. Population-based study of biochemical and survival outcomes after permanent 125I brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009, 73:860-865. discussion 865-867.
7. Kupelian P.A., Potters L., Khuntia D., et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy <72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy > or =72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 58:25-33.
8. Bostwick D.G. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994, 18:796-803.
9. Noguchi M., Stamey T.A., McNeal J.E., et al. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: Lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001, 166:104-109. discussion 109-110.
10. Boorjian S.A., Karnes R.J., Crispen P.L., et al. The impact of discordance between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores on survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009, 181:95-104. discussion 104.
11. King C.R., McNeal J.E., Gill H., et al. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: Implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 59:386-391.
12. Lee A.K., Schultz D., Renshaw A.A., et al. Optimizing patient selection for prostate monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 49:673-677.
13. D'Amico A.V., Renshaw A.A., Arsenault L., et al. Clinical predictors of upgrading to Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease at radical prostatectomy: Potential implications for patient selection for radiation and androgen suppression therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 45:841-846.
14. NCCN. National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer. Available at: Accessed January 22, 2012. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/prostate.pdf.
15. Kulkarni G.S., Lockwood G., Evans A., et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: Implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 2007, 109:2432-2438.
16. Cam K., Yucel S., Turkeri L., et al. Accuracy of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: Histopathological correlation to matched prostatectomy specimens. Int J Urol 2002, 9:257-260.
17. Karakiewicz P.I., Chun F.K., Gallina A., et al. Biopsies performed at tertiary care centers are superior to referral biopsies in predicting pathologic Gleason sum. J Endourol 2008, 22:533-538.
18. Naughton C.K., Miller D.C., Mager D.E., et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: Impact on cancer detection. J Urol 2000, 164:388-392.
19. Emiliozzi P., Scarpone P., DePaula F., et al. The incidence of prostate cancer in men with prostate specific antigen greater than 4.0 ng/ml: A randomized study of 6 versus 12 core transperineal prostate biopsy. J Urol 2004, 171:197-199.