1
|
Le Guevelou J, Magne N, Counago F, Magsanoc JM, Vermeille M, De Crevoisier R, Benziane-Ouaritini N, Ost P, Niazi T, Supiot S, Sargos P. Stereotactic body radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: current status and future directions. World J Urol 2023; 41:3333-3344. [PMID: 37725131 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04605-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/28/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Around 40% of men with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer will experience a biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of this review is to describe both toxicity and oncological outcomes following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered to the prostate bed (PB). METHOD In april 2023, we performed a systematic review of studies published in MEDLINE or ClinicalTrials.gov according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews, using the keywords "stereotactic radiotherapy" AND "postoperative" AND "prostate cancer". RESULTS A total of 14 studies assessing either adjuvant or salvage SBRT to the whole PB or macroscopic local recurrence (MLR) within the PB, and SBRT on radiorecurrent MLR within the PB were included. Doses delivered to either whole PB or MLR between 30 to 40 Gy are associated with a low rate of late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity, ranging from 2.2 to 15.1%. Doses above 40 Gy are associated with increased rate of late GU toxicity, raising up to 38%. Oncological outcomes should be interpreted with caution, due to both short follow-up, heterogeneous populations and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use. CONCLUSION PB or MLR SBRT delivered at doses up to 40 Gy appears safe with relatively low late severe GU toxicity rates. Caution is needed with dose-escalated RT schedules above 40 Gy. Further prospective trials are eagerly awaited in this disease setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nicolas Magne
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Felipe Counago
- Radiation Oncology Department, GenesisCare Madrid Clinical Director, San Francisco de Asis and La Milagrosa Hospitals, National Chair of Research and Clinical Trials, GenesisCare, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Matthieu Vermeille
- Radiation Oncology Department, Genolier Swiss Radio-Oncology Network, Genolier, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Piet Ost
- Radiation Oncology Department, Iridium Network, Antwerp, Belgium
- Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Tamim Niazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de L'Ouest, Nantes, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Padayachee J, Chaudhary S, Shim B, So J, Lim R, Raman S. Utilizing clinical, pathological and radiological information to guide postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2023; 23:293-305. [PMID: 36795862 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2181795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/18/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A detectable and rising PSA following radical prostatectomy is indicative of recurrent prostate cancer. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) with/without androgen deprivation therapy represents the main treatment option for these patients and has been historically associated with a biochemical control rate of ~70%. To determine the optimal timing, diagnostic workup, radiotherapy dosefractionation, treatment volume, and use of systemic therapy, several informative studies have been conducted in the last decade. AREAS COVERED This review examines the recent evidence to guide radiotherapy decision making in the SRT setting. Key topics include adjuvant vs salvage RT, utilization of molecular imaging and genomic classifiers, length of androgen deprivation therapy, inclusion of elective pelvic volume, and emerging role for hypofractionation. EXPERT OPINION Recently reported trials, conducted in an era prior to the routine use of molecular imaging and genomic classifiers, have been pivotal in establishing the current standard of care for SRT in prostate cancer. However, decisions about radiation treatment and systemic therapy may be tailored based on available prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Data from contemporary clinical trials are awaited to define and establish individualized, biomarker-driven approaches for SRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jerusha Padayachee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Simone Chaudhary
- Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Brian Shim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jonathan So
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Remy Lim
- Mercy PET/CT Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand.,Department of Radiology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Srinivas Raman
- Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Imber BS, O’Dwyer E, Lobaugh S, McBride SM, Hopkins M, Kollmeier M, Gorovets D, Brennan V, Pike LR, Gewanter R, Mychalczak B, Zhang Z, Schöder H, Zelefsky MJ. Failure Patterns by PSMA PET for Recurrent Prostate Cancer after Prostatectomy and Salvage Radiation. Urology 2022; 170:146-153. [PMID: 36115426 PMCID: PMC10576466 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.08.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Revised: 08/17/2022] [Accepted: 08/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To characterize patterns of failure using prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) after radical prostatectomy (RP) and salvage radiotherapy (SRT). METHODS Patients with rising PSA post-RP+SRT underwent 68Ga-HBED-iPSMA PET/CT on a single-arm, prospective imaging trial (NCT03204123). Scans were centrally reviewed with pattern-of-failure analysis by involved site. Positive scans were classified using 3 failure categories: pelvic nodal, extra-pelvic nodal or distant non-nodal. Associations with failure categories were analyzed using cumulative incidence and generalized logits regression. RESULTS We included 133 men who received SRT a median of 20 months post-RP; 56% received SRT to the prostatic fossa alone, while 44% received pelvic SRT. PSMA PET/CT was performed a median of 48 months post-SRT. Overall, 31% of PSMA PET/CT scans were negative, 2% equivocal and 67% had at least 1 positive site. Scan detection was significantly associated with PSA level prior to PSMA PET/CT. Analysis of 89 positive scans demonstrated pelvic nodal (53%) was the most common relapse and fossa relapse was low (9%). Overall, positive scans were pelvic (n = 35, 26%), extra-pelvic nodal (n = 26, 20%) or distant non-nodal failure (n = 28, 21%), and 70% of positive scans were oligorecurrent. We observed similar cumulative incidence for all failure categories and relatively few clinicodemographic associations. Men treated with pelvic SRT had reduced odds of pelvic failure versus exclusive fossa treatment. CONCLUSION Pelvic, extra-pelvic nodal, and distant non-nodal failures occur with similar incidence post-SRT. Regional nodal relapse is relatively common, especially with fossa-only SRT. A high oligorecurrence rate suggests a potentially important role for PSMA-guided focal therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brandon S. Imber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Elisabeth O’Dwyer
- Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics, Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065
| | - Stephanie Lobaugh
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Sean M. McBride
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Margaret Hopkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Marisa Kollmeier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Daniel Gorovets
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Victoria Brennan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Luke R.G. Pike
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Richard Gewanter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Borys Mychalczak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Zhigang Zhang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| | - Heiko Schöder
- Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michael J. Zelefsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tremeau L, Mottet N. Management of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Curative Treatment: A Focus on Older Patients. Drugs Aging 2022; 39:685-694. [PMID: 36008748 DOI: 10.1007/s40266-022-00973-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Following a treatment with curative intent, a biochemical recurrence may be diagnosed, often many years after the primary treatment. The consequences of this relapse on survival are very heterogeneous. The expected specific survival at relapse is above 50% at 10 years. Therefore, its management needs to be balanced with the individual life expectancy. The relapse needs to be categorized as either a low- or high-risk category. The latter has to be considered for salvage therapy, provided the individual life expectancy is long enough. It is evaluated through an initial geriatric assessment, starting with the G8 score as well as the mini-Cog. A comprehensive geriatric assessment might be needed based on the G8 score. Patients will then be categorized as either fit, vulnerable, or frail. If a local salvage therapy is considered, the relapse localization might be of interest in some situations. Available salvage therapies in senior adults have nothing special compared to salvage of younger men, except for aggressive local therapy, which might be less well tolerated. The key objective in managing a biochemical recurrence in senior adults is to find the right balance between under- and over-treatment in a shared decision process. In many frail and vulnerable men, a clinically oriented watchful waiting should be preferred, while fit men with an aggressive relapse and a significant life expectancy need an active therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lancelot Tremeau
- Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Saint Etienne, Saint Etienne, France.
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Saint Etienne, Saint Etienne, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Asso R, Degrande F, Fernandes da Silva J, Leite E. Postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: When and how? – An update review. Cancer Radiother 2022; 26:742-748. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.10.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2021] [Revised: 07/15/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
6
|
Shimoyachi N, Yoshioka Y, Sasamura K, Yonese J, Yamamoto S, Yuasa T, Soyano T, Kozuka T, Oguchi M. Comparison Between Dose-Escalated Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100753. [PMID: 34934854 PMCID: PMC8655408 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2021] [Accepted: 07/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To compare long-term outcomes and late toxicity between patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and with dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after prostatectomy. Methods and Materials A total of 110 patients who had been treated at our institution between 2010 and 2018 with SRT for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy were included. The patients were treated either by 3D-CRT with 64 Gy (59 patients) or by IMRT with 70 Gy (51 patients). The irradiation target was the prostate bed only (106 patients) or the prostate bed and pelvic region (4 patients). Twelve patients (11%) received concurrent androgen deprivation therapy. The differences in clinical outcomes and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were retrospectively assessed. Toxicities were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression after SRT was defined as an increase in the serum PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL from the PSA nadir after SRT and confirmed by a second PSA measurement that was higher than the first. Results The median follow-up time was 7.8 years for 3D-CRT (range:,0.3-9.2 years) and 3.1 years for IMRT (range, 0.4-7.2 years). There was no significant difference in the 4-year biochemical no-evidence-of-disease (bNED) rate between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups (43.5% vs 52.1%; P = .20). Toxicity analysis showed no significant difference in late GI or GU toxicities of grade 2 or greater between the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups. The respective 4-year cumulative rates of toxicity in the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups were as follows: grade ≥2 GI toxicity, 8.8% and 4.4% (P = .42); grade ≥2 GU toxicity, 19.1% and 20.3% (P = .93); and grade ≥2 hematuria, 5.3% and 8.0% (P = .67). In the 3D-CRT group, the 8-year cumulative rates of GI toxicity, GU toxicity, and hematuria of grade 2 or greater were 8.8%, 28.4%, and 12.6%, respectively. Conclusions Dose-escalated IMRT showed no improvements in bNED or late toxicity compared with 3D-CRT. In addition, the results suggest that GU toxicity can occur after a long period (even after 6 years), whereas GI toxicity is seldom newly observed after 4 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nana Shimoyachi
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and
- Corresponding author: Nana Shimoyachi, MD
| | | | | | - Junji Yonese
- Urology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shinya Yamamoto
- Urology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takeshi Yuasa
- Urology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takashi Soyano
- Department of Radiology, Japan Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takuyo Kozuka
- Department of Radiology, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Giraud N, Benziane-Ouaritini N, Schick U, Beauval JB, Chaddad A, Niazi T, Faye MD, Supiot S, Sargos P, Latorzeff I. Post-Operative Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Is It Time for a Belt and Braces Approach? Front Oncol 2021; 11:781040. [PMID: 34881187 PMCID: PMC8647553 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.781040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2021] [Accepted: 10/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Approximately 30% of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancers experience biochemical recurrence (BCR). Post-operative radiation therapy (RT) can be either offered immediately after the surgery in case of aggressive pathological features or proposed early if BCR occurs. Until recently, little data were available regarding the optimal RT timing, protocol, volumes to treat, and the benefit of adding androgen deprivation therapies to post-operative RT. In this review, we aim to pragmatically discuss current literature data on these points. Early salvage RT appears to be the optimal post-operative approach, improving oncological outcomes especially with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, as well as sparing several unnecessary adjuvant treatments. The standard RT dose is still 64–66 Gy to the prostate bed in conventional fractionation, but hypofractionation protocols are emerging pending on late toxicity data. Several scientific societies have published contouring atlases, even though they are heterogeneous and deserve future consensus. During salvage RT, the inclusion of pelvic lymph nodes is also controversial, but preliminary data show a possible benefit for PSA > 0.34 ng/ml at the cost of increased hematological side effects. Concomitant ADT and its duration are also discussed, possibly advantageous (at least in terms of metastasis-free survival) for PSA rates over 0.6 ng/ml, taking into account life expectancy and cardiovascular comorbidities. Intensified regimens, for instance, with new-generation hormone therapies, could further improve outcomes in carefully selected patients. Finally, recent advances in molecular imaging, as well as upcoming breakthroughs in genomics and artificial intelligence tools, could soon reshuffle the cards of the current therapeutic strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Giraud
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | | | - Ulrike Schick
- Radiation Oncology Department, University Hospital, Brest, France
| | | | - Ahmad Chaddad
- School of Artificial Intelligence, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, China
| | - Tamim Niazi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Mame Daro Faye
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Nantes Saint-Herblain, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Igor Latorzeff
- Radiation Oncology Department, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Leite ETT, Ramos CCA, Moraes FY. In Reply to Fiorino et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:1549-1550. [PMID: 34273333 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.04.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
9
|
Murgic J, Jaksic B, Prpic M, Kust D, Bahl A, Budanec M, Prgomet Secan A, Franco P, Kruljac I, Spajic B, Babic N, Kruslin B, Zovak M, Zubizarreta E, Rosenblatt E, Fröbe A. Comparison of hypofractionation and standard fractionation for post-prostatectomy salvage radiotherapy in patients with persistent PSA: single institution experience. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:88. [PMID: 33980277 PMCID: PMC8115388 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01808-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2021] [Accepted: 04/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hypofractionated post-prostatectomy radiotherapy is emerging practice, however with no randomized evidence so far to support it's use. Additionally, patients with persistent PSA after prostatectomy may have aggressive disease and respond less well on standard salvage treatment. Herein we report outcomes for conventionally fractionated (CFR) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFR) in patients with persistent postprostatectomy PSA who received salvage radiotherapy to prostate bed. METHODS Single institution retrospective chart review was performed after Institutional Review Board approval. Between May 2012 and December 2016, 147 patients received salvage postprostatectomy radiotherapy. PSA failure-free and metastasis-free survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was performed to test association of fractionation regimen and other clinical factors with treatment outcomes. Early and late toxicity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients who had persistent PSA (≥ 0.1 ng/mL) after prostatectomy were identified. Median follow-up was 67 months (95% CI 58-106 months, range, 8-106 months). Thirty-six patients (52.2%) received CFR, 66 Gy in 33 fractions, 2 Gy per fraction, and 33 patients (47.8%) received HFR, 52.5 Gy in 20 fractions, 2.63 Gy per fraction. Forty-seven (68%) patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). 5-year PSA failure- and metastasis-free survival rate was 56.9% and 76.9%, respectively. Thirty patients (43%) experienced biochemical failure after salvage radiotherapy and 16 patients (23%) experienced metastatic relapse. Nine patients (13%) developed metastatic castration-resistant disease and died of advanced prostate cancer. Median PSA failure-free survival was 72 months (95% CI; 41-72 months), while median metastasis-free survival was not reached. Patients in HFR group were more likely to experience shorter PSA failure-free survival when compared to CFR group (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.0-4.6, p = 0.04). On univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with PSA failure-free survival were radiotherapy schedule (CFR vs HFR, HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.6, p = 0.04), first postoperative PSA (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.0-1.04, p = 0.03), and concomitant ADT (HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.2-8.6, p = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with PSA failure-free survival were radiotherapy schedule (HR 3.04, 95% CI 1.37-6.74, p = 0.006) and concomitant ADT (HR 4.41, 95% CI 1.6-12.12, p = 0.004). On univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with metastasis-free survival were the first postoperative PSA (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12, p = 0.002), seminal vesicle involvement (HR 3.48, 95% CI 1.26-9.6,p = 0.02), extracapsular extension (HR 7.02, 95% CI 1.96-25.07, p = 0.003), and surgical margin status (HR 2.86, 95% CI 1.03-7.97, p = 0.04). The first postoperative PSA (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, p = 0.02) and extracapsular extension (HR 4.24, 95% CI 1.08-16.55, p = 0.04) remained significantly associated with metastasis-free survival on multivariate analysis. Three patients in CFR arm (8%) experienced late genitourinary grade 3 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS In our experience, commonly used hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen was associated with lower biochemical control compared to standard fractionation in patients with persistent PSA receiving salvage radiotherapy. Reason for this might be lower biological dose in HFR compared to CFR group. However, this observation is limited due to baseline imbalances in ADT use, ADT duration and Grade Group distribution between two radiotherapy cohorts. In patients with persistent PSA post-prostatectomy, the first postoperative PSA is an independent risk factor for treatment failure. Additional studies are needed to corroborate our observations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jure Murgic
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Blanka Jaksic
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Marin Prpic
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
- School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Davor Kust
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Amit Bahl
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Marlborough Street, Bristol, BS13NU, UK
| | - Mirjana Budanec
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Angela Prgomet Secan
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Pierfrancesco Franco
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, 28100, Novara, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 'Maggiore della Carità' University Hospital, 28100, Novara, Italy
| | - Ivan Kruljac
- Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases "Mladen Sekso", University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Borislav Spajic
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Nenad Babic
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Bozo Kruslin
- Ljudevit Jurak Department of Pathology and Cytology, Sestre Milosrdnice University Hospital Centre, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Mario Zovak
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Eduardo Zubizarreta
- Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Wagramer Str. 5, 1220, Vienna, Austria
| | - Eduardo Rosenblatt
- Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Wagramer Str. 5, 1220, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ana Fröbe
- Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Center Sestre Milosrdnice, Vinogradska 29, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
- School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
| |
Collapse
|