1
|
Slevin F, Zattoni F, Checcucci E, Cumberbatch MGK, Nacchia A, Cornford P, Briers E, De Meerleer G, De Santis M, Eberli D, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Liew M, Linares Espinós EE, Oldenburg J, Oprea-Lager DE, Ploussard G, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Smith EJ, Stranne J, Tilki D, Smith CT, Van Den Bergh RCN, Van Oort IM, Wiegel T, Yuan CY, Van den Broeck T, Henry AM. A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:677-696. [PMID: 38151440 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/29/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs. CONCLUSIONS EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. PATIENT SUMMARY We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Finbar Slevin
- University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
| | - Fabio Zattoni
- Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
| | - Enrico Checcucci
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | - Philip Cornford
- Department of Urology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Gert De Meerleer
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Nikolaos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | | | - Jan Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Emma Jane Smith
- European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Johan Stranne
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Catrin Tudur Smith
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Inge M Van Oort
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Cathy Y Yuan
- Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Ann M Henry
- University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Waraich TA, Khalid SY, Kathia UM, Ali A, Qamar SSS, Yousuf A, Saleem RMU. Assessing the Efficacy and Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Intervention Versus Radiotherapy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Treatment Modalities. Cureus 2024; 16:e58842. [PMID: 38784314 PMCID: PMC11115355 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58842] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
There is controversy regarding the most effective primary treatment of choice for prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of patient outcomes, such as surgery or radiotherapy (RT). This study evaluated the comparative efficacy and long-term outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT for PCa treatment. A thorough literature review of relevant databases was conducted, focusing on academic and clinical studies published from 2019 onwards. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other observational studies comparing survival outcomes in patients treated with surgery and RT. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to provide an overview of the data. We selected 19 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Of the total 19 studies, 12 advocated RP as the preferred treatment to improve survival outcomes in patients with PCa. The results of our synthesis showed that prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was lower in patients treated with RT. The total effect size for the analysis was calculated as Z=1.19 (p-value=0.23). The heterogeneity in the studies was as follows: Tau2=0.09, Chi2=20.25, df=4, I2=80%. Moreover, overall survival (OS) was shown to be higher in patients who underwent prostatectomy. The combined effect for the analysis was found to be: HR=0.97 (0.93, 1.01). The total effect was calculated as Z=1.33 (p-value= 0.18). The heterogeneity was found to be Tau2=0.00, Chi2=1.33, df=2, and I2=0%. However, overall mortality (OM) was shown to be independent of the treatment modality. RT is the preferred strategy for PCa treatment, as it balances efficacy and long-term outcomes. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine the treatment guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Syed Yousaf Khalid
- Department of Urology, Letterkenny University Hospital, Letterkenny, IRL
- Department of General Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital, Letterkenny, IRL
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, IRL
| | - Usama Muhammad Kathia
- Department of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, PAK
| | - Azfar Ali
- Department of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, PAK
| | | | - Ammar Yousuf
- Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Center, Lahore, PAK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Miszczyk M, Magrowski Ł, Krzysztofiak T, Stando R, Majewski W, Stawiski K, Masri O, Ciepał J, Depowska G, Chimiak K, Bylica G, Czapla B, Masri M, Cichur F, Jabłońska I, Gmerek M, Nowicka Z, Wojcieszek P, Sadowski J, Suwiński R, Rajwa P, Goldner G, Moll M. Brachytherapy boost improves survival and decreases risk of developing distant metastases compared to external beam radiotherapy alone in intermediate and high risk group prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2023; 183:109632. [PMID: 36963442 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2023] [Revised: 03/13/2023] [Accepted: 03/14/2023] [Indexed: 03/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Despite several prospective trials showing a clinical benefit of combining external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy boost (BTB) for the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients, none of these trials were designed to test for a survival difference. In this study, we aimed to collect a large multi-institutional database to determine whether BT boost was associated with a statistically significant improvement in survival and a reduction of distant metastases based on real-world data. MATERIAL AND METHODS We collected the data of patients treated for intermediate- or high-risk PCa with definitive EBRT or BTB, with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), between January 2003 and December 2014 at two tertiary institutions. The statistical endpoints included overall survival (OS), freedom from distant metastases (FFDM), and metastases-free survival (MFS). The impact of treatment modality was assessed using Cox regression models and log-rank testing after one-to-one propensity score matching. RESULTS A total of 1641 patients treated with EBRT (n=1148) or high-dose-rate BTB (n=493) were analyzed. The median survival and clinical follow-up were 117.8 (IQR 78-143.3) and 60.7 months, respectively. The radiotherapy modality (BTB) remained an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.63-0.88; p<0.001), FFDM (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.4-0.73; p<0.001), and MFS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.85; p<0.001). After propensity score matching, the remaining 986 patients were well-balanced in terms of age, maximum PSA, ISUP grade group, and TNM T stage. OS (p=0.001), FFDM (p<0.001) and MFS (p<0.001) were significantly higher in the BTB group. CONCLUSIONS There is a strong positive association between BTB and OS, FFDM, and MFS in PCa patients treated with definitive RT for intermediate- or high-risk PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcin Miszczyk
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland; Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
| | - Łukasz Magrowski
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Tomasz Krzysztofiak
- Brachytherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Rafał Stando
- Department of Radiotherapy, Holy Cross Cancer Center, Stefana Artwińskiego 3, 25-734 Kielce, Poland
| | - Wojciech Majewski
- Radiotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Konrad Stawiski
- Department of Biostatistics and Translational Medicine, Medical University of Łódź, al. Tadeusza Kościuszki 4, 90-419 Łódź, Poland
| | - Oliwia Masri
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Jakub Ciepał
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Gabriela Depowska
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Krystyna Chimiak
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Gabriela Bylica
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Barbara Czapla
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Małgorzata Masri
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Franciszek Cichur
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Iwona Jabłońska
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Marta Gmerek
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Zuzanna Nowicka
- Department of Biostatistics and Translational Medicine, Medical University of Łódź, al. Tadeusza Kościuszki 4, 90-419 Łódź, Poland
| | - Piotr Wojcieszek
- Brachytherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Jacek Sadowski
- Department of Radiotherapy, Holy Cross Cancer Center, Stefana Artwińskiego 3, 25-734 Kielce, Poland
| | - Rafał Suwiński
- IInd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Wybrzeże Armii Krajowej 15, 44-102 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Paweł Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, 3-go Maja 13-15, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland
| | - Gregor Goldner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Matthias Moll
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Siedow M, Eisner M, Yaney A, Washington I, Zynger D, Martin D, Mo X, Diconstanzo D, Diaz DA. Impact of prostate biopsy secondary pathology review on radiotherapy management. Prostate 2022; 82:210-215. [PMID: 34698410 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2021] [Revised: 10/05/2021] [Accepted: 10/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Gleason scoring system is the most widely used method to assess prostate adenocarcinoma pathology however interobserver variability is significant. Gleason score, PSA level, and clinical stage comprise the NCCN risk stratification that guides treatment decision making. Given the importance of an accurate Gleason score and wide interobserver variability, referral centers routinely review outside pathology at the time of consultation. We sought to address the impact a secondary pathology review had on radiation therapy treatment recommendations in men with prostate cancer at our institution. METHODS We retrospectively collected patient data on 342 patients seen at our institution from January 2012 to December 2018. Clinicopathologic data were used to subdivide patients into risk groups and available treatment options per NCCN criteria. Cases reviewed by our genitourinary pathologist (GUP) were compared with reports from outside pathologists. Inter-rater reliability between pathologists was assessed with weighted Cohen's kappa statistic and agreement of treatment options was determined by McNemar's exact tests. RESULTS GUP scored more cores positive in 16.47% of cases on secondary review. Primary Gleason score was changed in 12.28% of patients and secondary score in 26.02% of cases. Total Gleason score was different in 29.24% of cases, 19.01% were downgraded and 10.23% upgraded. The weighted kappa statistic was 0.759 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.711, 0.807). 18.77% of patients were assigned to a different NCCN risk group following secondary review. The weighted kappa statistic comparing NCCN risk stratification was 0.802 (95% CI: 0.754, 0.850). Secondary review influenced radiation therapy recommendations pertaining to brachytherapy boost and androgen deprivation therapy in men with high risk disease (χ2 = 5.33, p = 0.0386; χ2 = 8.05, p = 0.0072, respectively). Kappa statistic was found to be highest when GUP assessed high-risk disease versus all other categories (κ = 0.823, 95% CI: 0.750, 0.895). CONCLUSIONS We found nearly one in five men (18.7%) was assigned a different NCCN risk group and thus offered potentially different treatment options after a secondary pathology review at our institution. Given the inherent nature of prostate cancer and lung disease-specific survival associated with modern therapies, our study demonstrates the importance of a secondary pathology review and its potential impact on radiation therapy recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Siedow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Mariah Eisner
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Alexander Yaney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Iman Washington
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffit Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA
| | - Debra Zynger
- Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Douglas Martin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Xiaokui Mo
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Dominic Diconstanzo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Dayssy Alexandra Diaz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wu SY, Chang SC, Chen CI, Huang CC. Oncologic Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy and High-Dose Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy with Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Relatively Young Patients with Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13071517. [PMID: 33806181 PMCID: PMC8036838 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13071517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Revised: 03/21/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Scarce reports have evaluated oncologic outcomes in relatively young men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (UIR-PC) receiving radical prostatectomy (RP) or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). After a literature review, we present the leading and largest head-to-head propensity score-matched study to examine all-cause death, biochemical failure (BF), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) in relatively young men with UIR-PC undergoing RP or high-dose IMRT. After adjustment for confounders, RP was found to be superior to high-dose IMRT in terms of the patients’ overall survival, BF, LRR, and DM. Abstract Purpose: To estimate the oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with short-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in relatively young men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN-UIR-PC). Patients and Methods: We enrolled relatively young men (≤65 years) from the Taiwan Cancer Registry who had been diagnosed as having NCCN-UIR-PC and who had received RP or high-dose IMRT (at least ≥72 Gy) with short-term ADT (4–6 months). After propensity score matching of the confounders, Cox proportional regression was used to model the time from the index date (i.e., date of diagnosis) to all-cause death, biochemical failure (BF), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM). Results: The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of the risk of all-cause death, BF, LRR, and DM were 2.76 (1.36–5.60, p = 0.0050), 2.74 (1.72–4.84, p < 0.0001), 1.28 (1.09–1.90, p = 0.0324), and 2.11 (1.40–4.88, p = 0.0052), respectively. Conclusions: RP is superior to high-dose IMRT with short-term ADT in terms of oncologic outcomes for relatively young men with UIR-PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Szu-Yuan Wu
- Department of Food Nutrition and Health Biotechnology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung 413, Taiwan;
- Big Data Center, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 256, Taiwan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 256, Taiwan
- Department of Healthcare Administration, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung 413, Taiwan
- Cancer Center, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 256, Taiwan
- Graduate Institute of Business Administration, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei 242062, Taiwan
- Centers for Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Taipei Municipal Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan
| | - Shyh-Chyi Chang
- Department of Urology, Lo-Hsu Medical Foundation, Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital, Yilan 256, Taiwan;
- Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei 11221, Taiwan
| | - Chang-I Chen
- International Ph.D. Program in Biotech and Healthcare Management, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan;
- Department of Health Care Administration, College of Management, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan
| | - Chung-Chien Huang
- Department of Health Care Administration, College of Management, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|